On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > and from looking at SET_TYPE_RM_VALUEs definition it doesn't
> > touch TYPE_MAX_VALUE. So TYPE_MAX_VALUE is as set from
> > make_unsigned_type (8) which should set it to 255, not 1.
> >
> > So ... how can it be a no-op?
>
> Look a few lines below. :-
> and from looking at SET_TYPE_RM_VALUEs definition it doesn't
> touch TYPE_MAX_VALUE. So TYPE_MAX_VALUE is as set from
> make_unsigned_type (8) which should set it to 255, not 1.
>
> So ... how can it be a no-op?
Look a few lines below. :-) In gigi we manipulate both full-fledged Ada types
wit
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I'm wondering why for Ada boolean_true_node has a value that is
> > not in the range of the Ada type but is, for the specific case,
> > 255 instead of 1. Is there a specific reason for that?
>
> None, boolean_true_node must be 1, that's why we (re)se
> I'm wondering why for Ada boolean_true_node has a value that is
> not in the range of the Ada type but is, for the specific case,
> 255 instead of 1. Is there a specific reason for that?
None, boolean_true_node must be 1, that's why we (re)set it in gnat_init.
> Does the following patch make s
Hi,
I'm wondering why for Ada boolean_true_node has a value that is
not in the range of the Ada type but is, for the specific case,
255 instead of 1. Is there a specific reason for that?
Does the following patch make sense (untested)?
Btw, I wonder if Ada cannot simply use its own boolean_type
