2013/6/4 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 06/04/2013 04:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes. Booleans are integral types with a single bit of precision, right? >>> So >>> this check should allow boolean types. What am I missing? >> >> >> We have BOOLEAN_TYPEs that do not have a TYPE_PRECISION of one >> (but still are two-valued, and we assume those values are 0 and != 0 >> (eh)). >> So there is code that treats BOOLEAN_TYPEs the same as TYPE_PRECISION >> one types and there is code that does not (for example bitwise not is not >> equal to truth not on such types). > > Good grief. For a boolean with a TYPE_PRECISION != 1, I think we can apply > the transformations if the type is unsigned. Once the type is signed I > think we'd lose. > > Do you have any sample code which would create a boolean type with a > precision other than 1? > > jeff >
AFAI recall, the boolean-type in Ada has 8-bit precision. I think we have to omit this transformations for any boolean-type with type-precision not equal to 1. Ada uses the other values for sanity-check AFAIR. Kai
