Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] include: define bool type in a more portable way

Hi Masahiro Yamada,

Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be preferable?

Regards,

Graeme

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.comwrote:

Hi.

I posted v2 of this patch http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292258/

I think both of two solutions work.

(1) include <stdbool.h> in common/cmd_test.c but undef true and false. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292247/

(2) Do not include <stdbool.h> and define true and false with enum. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292258/

Personally, I prefer (2) to (1) because

• we don't need to tweak common/cmd_test.c any more
• we can reduce the conflict if we have a plan to update Linux-originated header files.

Best Regards Masahiro Yamada

---

U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot