tbaeder added a comment. In D149645#4312162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149645#4312162>, @erichkeane wrote:
> For C, should we instead be teaching our boolean operations to understand it > might be int? I fear this will end up causing conversion problems later, > such as with: > > `int F = 1 > 2;`. We won't end up having a conversion operation there, since > the RHS is already `int`, for the LHS. The result of `1 > 2` is int, yes. That's what this patch does - it converts the `Boolean` we create to the `int` the AST (and thus all the intepreter code inspecting it) expects. The AST has no `IntegralToBool` cast in the example, but that doesn't matter for this patch; it just fixes the types on the stack to correspond to what the later code expects. I'm not opposed to adding a target type to the comparison ops, but I'm not sure if the additional complexity is worth it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149645/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149645 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
