On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> >> The target has
>> >>
>> >> 2 = sizeof (short)
>> >> 2 = sizeof (int)
>> >> 4 = sizeof (long int)
>> >> 8 = sizeof (long long int)
>> >>
>> >> Could you fix that? I.e. parametrize sizeof(int) out or skip the test by
>> >> means of
>> >>
>> >> /* { dg-require-effective-target int32plus } */
>> >>
>> >> or similar.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, Johann
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> > The problem actually happens when we compare float vector with float
>> > vector, it is assumed that we should get int vector as a result, but
>> > it turns out that we are getting long int.
>> >
>> > The same with double, we assume that sizeof (double) == sizeof (long
>> > long). But as it seems double has the same size as float.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> sizeof(double) = sizeof(float) = 4
>>
>> > Hm, I can put conditional of sort:
>> > if (sizeof (doulbe) == sizeof (long long)) and others. Or may be there
>> > is more elegant way of solving this?
>>
>> That's too late because this won't prevent the compiler from error.
>> The error already happens at compile time, not at run time.
>
> Isn't it possible to do something like:
> vector (4, float) f0;
> vector (4, float) f1;
> - vector (4, int) ifres;
> + vector (4, __typeof (f0 > f1)) ifres;
>
> f0 = (vector (4, float)){(float)argc, 1., 2., 10.};
> f1 = (vector (4, float)){0., 3., 2., (float)-23};
> test (4, f0, f1, ifres, "%f");
>
> /* Double comparison. */
> vector (2, double) d0;
> vector (2, double) d1;
> - vector (2, long long) idres;
> + vector (2, __typeof (d0 > d1)) idres;
>
> d0 = (vector (2, double)){(double)argc, 10.};
> d1 = (vector (2, double)){0., (double)-23};
> test (2, d0, d1, idres, "%f");
>
> Jakub
>
Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
statically get correspondence of the types, in a sense that sizeof
(float) == sizeof (int) and sizeof (double) == sizeof (long long). As
it seems my original assumption does not hold. Before using __typeof,
I would try to make sure that there is no other way to determine these
correspondences.
Artem.
