On 16 June 2023 07:35:27 CEST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
index 0000000000000..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 "integral types" } */
+
+typedef double __attribute__ ((__hardbool__))
+hbdbl; /* { dg-error "integral types" } */
+
+enum x;
+typedef enum x __attribute__ ((__hardbool__))
+hbenum; /* { dg-error "integral types" } */
+
+struct s;
+typedef struct s __attribute__ ((__hardbool__))
+hbstruct; /* { dg-error "integral types" } */
+
+typedef int __attribute__ ((__hardbool__ (0, 0)))
+hb00; /* { dg-error "different values" } */
+
+typedef int __attribute__ ((__hardbool__ (4, 16))) hb4x;
+struct s {
+ hb4x m:2;
+}; /* { dg-error "is a GCC extension|different values" } */
+/* { dg-warning "changes value" "warning" { target *-*-* } .-1 } */
+
+hb4x __attribute__ ((vector_size (4 * sizeof (hb4x))))
+vvar; /* { dg-error "invalid vector type" } */
Arm-chair, tinfoil hat still on, didn't look closely, hence:
I don't see explicit tests with _Complex nor __complex__. Would we want to
check these here, or are they handled thought the "underlying" tests above?
I'd welcome a fortran interop note in the docs as hinted previously to cover
out of the box behavior. It's probably reasonably unlikely but better be safe
than sorry?
cheers,
