Merge from gnulib.

This incorporates:
2012-08-29 stdbool: be more compatible with mixed C/C++ compiles
2011-11-30 manywarnings: update the list of "all" warnings

1 files changed, 31 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/lib/stdbool.in.h b/lib/stdbool.in.h
index ed1f9aa488b..1f8caee4f2d 100644
--- a/lib/stdbool.in.h
+++ b/lib/stdbool.in.h
@@ -66,24 +66,19 @@
 # undef true
 #endif
 
-/* For the sake of symbolic names in gdb, we define true and false as
-   enum constants, not only as macros.
-   It is tempting to write
-      typedef enum { false = 0, true = 1 } _Bool;
-   so that gdb prints values of type 'bool' symbolically. But if we do
-   this, values of type '_Bool' may promote to 'int' or 'unsigned int'
-   (see ISO C 99 6.7.2.2.(4)); however, '_Bool' must promote to 'int'
-   (see ISO C 99 6.3.1.1.(2)).  So we add a negative value to the
-   enum; this ensures that '_Bool' promotes to 'int'.  */
-#if defined __cplusplus || (defined __BEOS__ && !defined __HAIKU__)
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+# define _Bool bool
+# define bool bool
+#else
+# if defined __BEOS__ && !defined __HAIKU__
   /* A compiler known to have 'bool'.  */
   /* If the compiler already has both 'bool' and '_Bool', we can assume they
      are the same types.  */
-# if !@HAVE__BOOL@
+#  if !@HAVE__BOOL@
 typedef bool _Bool;
-# endif
-#else
-# if !defined __GNUC__
+#  endif
+# else
+#  if !defined __GNUC__
    /* If @HAVE__BOOL@:
         Some HP-UX cc and AIX IBM C compiler versions have compiler bugs when
         the built-in _Bool type is used.  See
@@ -103,19 +98,35 @@ typedef bool _Bool;
           "Invalid enumerator. (badenum)" with HP-UX cc on Tru64.
         The only benefit of the enum, debuggability, is not important
         with these compilers.  So use 'signed char' and no enum.  */
-#  define _Bool signed char
-# else
+#   define _Bool signed char
+#  else
    /* With this compiler, trust the _Bool type if the compiler has it.  */
-#  if !@HAVE__BOOL@
+#   if !@HAVE__BOOL@
+   /* For the sake of symbolic names in gdb, define true and false as
+      enum constants, not only as macros.
+      It is tempting to write
+         typedef enum { false = 0, true = 1 } _Bool;
+      so that gdb prints values of type 'bool' symbolically.  But then
+      values of type '_Bool' might promote to 'int' or 'unsigned int'
+      (see ISO C 99 6.7.2.2.(4)); however, '_Bool' must promote to 'int'
+      (see ISO C 99 6.3.1.1.(2)).  So add a negative value to the
+      enum; this ensures that '_Bool' promotes to 'int'.  */
 typedef enum { _Bool_must_promote_to_int = -1, false = 0, true = 1 } _Bool;
+#   endif
 #  endif
 # endif
+# define bool _Bool
 #endif
-#define bool _Bool
 
 /* The other macros must be usable in preprocessor directives.  */
-#define false 0
-#define true 1
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+# define false false
+# define true true
+#else
+# define false 0
+# define true 1
+#endif
+
 #define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1
 
 #endif /* _GL_STDBOOL_H */