On Jun 22, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:08:55 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Thanks for the test.
>>
>> Did you mean for me to incorporate it into the patch, or do you mean to
>> contribute it separately, if the feature happens to be accepted?
> These were
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:08:55 -0300
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Thanks for the test.
>
> Did you mean for me to incorporate it into the patch, or do you mean to
> contribute it separately, if the feature happens to be accepted?
These were your tests that i quoted but i or my MUA botched to add one
Thanks for the test.
Did you mean for me to incorporate it into the patch, or do you mean to
contribute it separately, if the feature happens to be accepted?
On Jun 19, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> I don't see explicit tests with _Complex nor __complex__. Would we
> want to check the
On 16 June 2023 07:35:27 CEST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches
wrote:
index 0..634feaed4deef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hardbool-err.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
+
+typedef _Bool __attribute__ ((__hardbool__))
+hbbl; /* { dg-error
On Jun 16, 2023, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> So, such a type would be incompatible with vanilla LOGICAL variables
> and with C interop logical variables.
Yeah, it would. It's something else, and if you choose to use such a
type in an interface, it would need to be handled as such. Presumably,
absen
Hi Alexandre,
On Apr 6, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
29 For C_BOOL, the internal representation of .TRUE._C_BOOL and
.FALSE._C_BOOL shall be the same as those of
30 the C values (_Bool)1 and (_Bool)0 respectively.
I'm not changing any of the standard types, FWIW. The proposed
ext
On Apr 6, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> 29 For C_BOOL, the internal representation of .TRUE._C_BOOL and
> .FALSE._C_BOOL shall be the same as those of
> 30 the C values (_Bool)1 and (_Bool)0 respectively.
I'm not changing any of the standard types, FWIW. The proposed
extension enable
On 6 April 2023 08:11:11 CEST, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>On Apr 2, 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 10:53:08 -0300
>> Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> Ping? (sorry, Joseph, I failed to Cc: you last time)
>
>> Didn't move yet did it.
>
>'fraid not, and sur
