+ enum { j = false, k = true, l = false * true, m = true * 256 };
+ _Bool n[m];
+ char o[sizeof n == m * sizeof n[0] ? 1 : -1];
+ char p[-1 - (_Bool) 0 < 0 && -1 - (bool) 0 < 0 ? 1 : -1];
+ #if defined __xlc__ || defined __GNUC__
+ /* Catch a bug in IBM AIX xlc compiler version 6.0.0.0
+ reported by James Lemley on 2005-10-05; see
+ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-10/msg00086.html
+ This test is not quite right, since xlc is allowed to
+ reject this program, as the initializer for xlcbug is
+ not one of the forms that C requires support for.
+ However, doing the test right would require a run-time
+ test, and that would make cross-compilation harder.
+ Let us hope that IBM fixes the xlc bug, and also adds
+ support for this kind of constant expression. In the
+ meantime, this test will reject xlc, which is OK, since
+ our stdbool.h substitute should suffice. We also test
+ this with GCC, where it should work, to detect more
+ quickly whether someone messes up the test in the
+ future. */
+ char digs[] = "0123456789";
+ int xlcbug = 1 / (&(digs + 5)[-2 + (bool) 1] == &digs[4] ? 1 : -1);
+ #endif
+ /* Catch a bug in an HP-UX C compiler. See
+ http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg02303.html
+ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-11/msg00161.html
+ */
+ _Bool q = true;
+ _Bool *pq = &q;
+ ],
+ [
+ *pq |= q;
+ *pq |= ! q;
+ /* Refer to every declared value, to avoid compiler optimizations. */
+ return (!a + !b + !c + !d + !e + !f + !g + !h + !i + !!j + !k + !!l
+ + !m + !n + !o + !p + !q + !pq);