[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.

To: rspanton@xxxxxxxxxx, gEDA user mailing list <geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.
From: Ineiev <ineiev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 05:23:47 +0000
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 27 May 2010 01:24:06 -0400
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bmLhuqC4TRJYumeyEJaBswtrvbGHSftxkmffUeGkCY0=; b=LrMxY//dvXW9L9oCy6KAYN4vlReghrC1U/pjDCvXa7vaAMFvi9UcNfrHFeXWOTOsR0 no1DiyR3mOCWU5aY7hPjUOC5AuoNFB+Xl1H7j5TF0mBkq/SFHvHfgFk3jXrAf+0CygXM +fm7KlJ9OuRQfdwgjfZOB1CPQ2DMZ18vkOpRU=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=DjJXTmbruBGf+S9V9QEV/C0e9pfPEyOO5sutpEUxLmxFHjoD6Jbaz/7a819BPhpPF6 ccMsOLtEPssaoK7A9KQAq40vW/sc3Lgl1Ko4gvE6DrmQjr4U20yplHDh7LwfDabYwBOh 9sawEomV06S2YScrtiMVRYKAw+muEo/QXBAGU=
In-reply-to: <1274912181.3534.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.seul.org/pipermail/geda-user>
List-help: <mailto:geda-user-request@moria.seul.org?subject=help>
List-id: gEDA user mailing list <geda-user.moria.seul.org>
List-post: <mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org>
List-subscribe: <http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user>, <mailto:geda-user-request@moria.seul.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/geda-user>, <mailto:geda-user-request@moria.seul.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1274912181.3534.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: gEDA user mailing list <geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi,

On 5/26/10, Robert Spanton <rspanton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I started working on stuff in the PCB source, and found that it uses a
> typedef called 'Boolean' rather than the c99 bool type.  Please find
> three patches that transition PCB over to using the c99 bool in the
> following directory: http://srobo.org/~rspanton/geda/pcb-bools/

What are the advantages? is current implementation broken for some platform,
modern or future?

> The PCB build scripts tell the compiler to use the 'gnu99' standard (C99
> with GNU extensions)

I believe it does not in general case, and current sources do build with
c89 compilers as far as I know.

Kind regards,
Ineiev


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.
  - From: Robert Spanton

References:
- gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.
  - From: Robert Spanton

Prev by Author: gEDA-user: SMA connector footprint
Next by Author: Re: gEDA-user: PCB patches (was: [PATCH 1/7] PCB localization)
Previous by thread: Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.
Next by thread: Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread