Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2011
Hello, the following problem: #define cBOOL(cbool) ((bool)!!(cbool)) vs. #define cBOOL(cbool) ((cbool) ? TRUE : FALSE) is handled by IBM via APAR IV11885. I think it will be fixed for all compilers currently under support (V9, V10, v11). Bye Rainer On 15.11.2011 13:41, Rainer Tammer wrote: > Hello, > > On 15.11.2011 13:17, Nikola Knežević wrote: >> On 15 Nov 2011, at 12:43 , Rainer Tammer wrote: > ... cut for clarity ... >> Found this thread related to stdbool.h and AIX compiler: >> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-01/msg00270.html> >> >> Nicholas, can you please also test this: >> >> char digs[] = "0123456789"; >> int xlcbug = 1 / (&(digs + 5)[-2 + (bool) 1] == &digs[4] ? 1 : -1); >> >> This test should fail with buggy xlc. >>> should this fail to compile or is the result not OK? >>> I can compile this with XL C/C++ V8 and V10.... and xlcbug is 1. >> Hi, >> >> just to clarify, the above code is not mine. I took it from the referenced thread. Guys from gnulib also had some problems with stdbool.h and AIX compiler (version 6.0.0, IIRC). However, after all these nice results Nicholas collected, I think the bug is not related. >> >> To clarify further: the code should fail to compile if the compiler is buggy. On good compilers, the results should be 1. > The code compiles with XL C/C++ V8 and up (did not test V7). > I too think this is not related. >> Best, >> Nikola >> >> > Bye > Rainer > >Thread Previous | Thread Next