On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, Richard Biener wrote: > would maybe result in a surprising result. One alternative > would be to make the attribute have the signedness specified as well > (C doesn't accept 'unsigned _Bool' or 'signed _Bool') or > simply name the attribute "signed_bool_precision". I guess the bool case > is really special compared to the desire to eventually allow > declaring of a 3 bit precision signed/unsigned integer type. > > Allowing 'signed _Bool' with -fgimple might be another option > of course.
Something that makes clear it's a signed boolean type with the given precision seems a good idea (I'd have assumed a nonstandard boolean type with a given precision was unsigned). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
