Re: bool: symbol name collision

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I know those #if's are there, but whether they actually do
>> anything useful is highly questionable.  There is no reason to assume
>> that a compiler's built-in version of bool will be bit-compatible with
>> ours.  And changing the width of bool is guaranteed to Not Work.

> Supporting C++ in the server would be a big task, but supporting C99,
> it seems to me, would only require we rename our "bool" "true" and
> "false" defines. The only other C99 keyword or typedef we use is
> "inline" for which I don't understand the issues yet.

Huh?  We build just fine on C99 compilers, AFAIK.  Or are you saying
that we should try to adopt <stdbool.h>'s definition of bool?  The
problem there is, again, that we don't know what width that will be.

            regards, tom lane