From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:14:37 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [Patch v3] Consolidate bool type
In-Reply-To: <51017785.9060705@freescale.com> (from yorksun@freescale.com on
	Thu Jan 24 12:03:49 2013)
References: <1358977307-17350-1-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com>
	<51005A1C.1010308@freescale.com> <1358977924.9710.8@snotra>
	<51005DCD.3010706@freescale.com> <1358978574.9710.10@snotra>
	<51005EA6.1050104@freescale.com> <20130124173447.GB1836@badger>
	<5101755E.1050406@freescale.com> <51017785.9060705@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <1359051277.24865.8@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 01/24/2013 12:03:49 PM, York Sun wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 09:54 AM, York Sun wrote:
> > On 01/24/2013 09:34 AM, Allen Martin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:05:26PM -0800, York Sun wrote:
> >>> On 01/23/2013 02:02 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>>> On 01/23/2013 04:01:49 PM, York Sun wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/23/2013 01:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>>>>> On 01/23/2013 03:46:04 PM, York Sun wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
> >>>>>>> I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile  
> all ARCH
> >>>>>>> myself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC?  I think most  
> people
> >>>>>> don't have every single toolchain.  You should at least get a  
> toolchain
> >>>>>> for a couple major architectures such as ARM.  Usually RFC is  
> for when
> >>>>>> you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet  
> even if
> >>>>>> nobody else finds fault with it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get  
> involved
> >>>>> and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed  
> to me. I
> >>>>> couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC?  How many  
> boards failed?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to  
> verify
> >>> on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Built and tested on tegra, no problems.  I'm still seeing a lot of
> >> references to  TRUE/FALSE even after this patch though:
> >>
> >> $ git grep -e FALSE -e TRUE | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":"} {print $1}' |  
> sort | uniq
> >>
> > Thanks, Allen. A long way to go.
> >
> 
> I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left  
> alone
> those FALSE, False, false but add define like this
> 
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> +#define TRUE true
> +#define FALSE false
> +#define True true
> +#define False false
> 
> Isn't that enough?

It's enough to make it build, but it would be better to fix the users.

-Scott