On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:51 AM Sven Barth via fpc-devel < fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Dmitry Boyarintsev <skalogryz.li...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 12. Okt. > 2018, 02:07: > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:16 PM Jonas Maebe <jo...@freepascal.org> wrote: >> >>> However, the Objective-C BOOL type does not map to _Bool on x86-64, but >>> to signed char. And values of that type indeed do need to (sign) >>> extended. >>> >> >> Should use of ByteBool resolve the problems for ObjC mapped headers for >> the current version of the compiler? >> is "ByteBool" an alias for Boolean, or is it forcefully "char" sized for >> x86_64 ABI? >> > > Even Boolean has the correct size of 1 Byte. The difference is the value > of True: For Boolean its always 1, for ByteBool it's "not 0". > But it feels like "signed chars" are treated differently, where the value would extended to the remaining bits of the register. That's why I was wondering if "ByteBool" would be passed differently than "Boolean" on 64-bit. Here's a similar discussion https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31267325/bool-with-64-bit-on-ios It actually states that true _Bool is only used for 64-bit ARM and no other targets. So, I'm wondering if it's actually a compiler issue or headers issue. and can ByteBool be used as a substitute for signed char. thanks, Dmitry
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
