Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-05-02 23:18:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> which causes us to not use stdbool.h, which might be all right if you
>> weren't also specifying --with-icu.
> How did you conclude that ICU is the problem? I didn't immediately find
> anything in the buildfarm output indicating that's where the stdbool include
> is coming from. Don't get me wrong, it's a plausible guess, just curious.
A bit of a leap I agree, but IIRC we have discovered in the past that
recent ICU headers require C99 bool.
> Seems easiest to just change the configuration so that ICU isn't enabled for
> 10, 11? It's pretty reasonable to rely on it these days...
Yeah, that seemed like the most plausible answer to me too. The point
of the animal is to check C90 compatibility, not ICU compatibility.
regards, tom lane