Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCo6a-00D6UW-MC for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:50:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCo6W-001tMs-RC for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:50:53 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCo6W-001tMk-ID for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:50:53 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCo6U-002QIE-0K for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:50:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4AHMolTe3175763; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:50:47 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Sam James , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Build failure with GCC 15 (defaults to -std=gnu23) In-reply-to: References: <87o72eo9iu.fsf@gentoo.org> <3073930.1731867112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3160019.1731875201@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3169079.1731880169@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:45:24 +1300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3175761.1731883847.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:50:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3175762.1731883847@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > It sounds like we should stop using the old and broken > AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. Yeah, that's what I was imagining: assume that exists and works, and check only to see if sizeof(bool) is acceptable. > ... Later autoconf versions check for > C99 "or later", but we're stuck with the old one and I doubt we are > going to upgrade it. I'm not sure --- there was some discussion a week or two ago about upgrading autoconf after all. But whether we do or not, it's hard to see what AC_HEADER_STDBOOL is buying us. regards, tom lane