From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11390 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2002 00:02:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11375 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2002 00:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO plum.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2002 00:02:46 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by plum.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.04) id 171Ffg-0001YY-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 01:02:36 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 171FfN-0003Jg-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 01:02:17 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:53:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Stan Shebs cc: Subject: Re: sizeof (_Bool) In-Reply-To: <3CC9E575.9CD43FC6@apple.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01483.txt.bz2 On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Stan Shebs wrote: > > The macro exists, and is even documented (for C++). Since with the new > > C++ ABI, mn10200 is the only target where BOOL_TYPE_SIZE != > > CHAR_TYPE_SIZE, the difference between them didn't seem important for C, > > so C doesn't currently use the macro. > > But do you think it's a good idea to start using it, or not? If the Darwin and mn10200 maintainers agree that, where a non-default size is used for bool in one of C and C++, it should also be used in the other, then it would be a good idea to move BOOL_TYPE_SIZE to defaults.h and make the obvious 1-line change to the C front end to use it there. (And while you're about it, get rid of the two definitions of BOOL_TYPE_SIZE to its default value that are present in other target headers.) -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk