Re: stdint_.h vs intmax_t & uintmax_t

2005-11-27 Thread Paul Eggert
"Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Did Bruno ever give you his opinion for this fix? No. I suspect he's been busy. Now that you've pinged him again let's give him another chance for a few days; if he doesn't respond I don't think he'd object to that patch. ___

Re: lib/stdbool_.h doesn't honor HAVE__BOOL

2005-11-27 Thread Paul Eggert
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:11:05PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: >> +#if defined __cplusplus || defined __BEOS__ >> typedef bool _Bool; >> +#else > > This will break on C++ compilers with bool _and_ _Bool, like the HP-UX > 11.23/IA-64 aCC6 compiler. I assume

Re: Symbol availability in C, C++

2005-11-27 Thread Paul Eggert
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We've currently solved it by implementing > separate defines depending on the language. That doesn't sound quite right. If you compile with different C compilers, or the same C compiler with differing options, you should have to rerun 'configure'. The s

Re: stdint_.h vs intmax_t & uintmax_t

2005-11-27 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Hi Paul, Did Bruno ever give you his opinion for this fix? Thanks, -- Mark Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There is one remaining interaction with stdint_.h and config.h > > which arises from m4/size_max.m4 > > > > %