Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On March 20, 2018 8:24:41 PM PDT, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:14:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-03-20 17:04:22 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On 3/20/18 02:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > > I think it'd be worth identifying exactly which platforms have
>> > > sizeof(bool) different from 1. Are any of them things that
>anyone
>> > > cares about going forward? The point of this patch is to ease
>> > > future development of extensions, but it's unlikely any extension
>> > > authors care about portability onto, say, macOS 10.4
>(prairiedog).
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I follow. Say we commit configure tests and discover
>that
>> > platforms A, B, and C are affected. What would we do with that
>> > information? I don't think we are saying we'd just break A, B, and
>C.
>>
>> If those are only older platforms we could just not use stdbool for
>> those. The likelihood of getting into conflicts with $library stdbool
>> uses is lower...
>
>Yeah, I agree with that. Just not using stdbool.h in those cases ought
>to be fine. Any platforms where sizeof(bool) is 4 involves macos older
>than 10.5 and Windows platforms using MSVC versions older than 2003
>(didn't look further down either).

Aren't there some somewhat modern architectures where that's still the case, for performance reasons? PPC or such?

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.