On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> - _Complex _BitInt(N) isn't supported; again mainly because none of the psABIs
> mention how those should be passed/returned; in a limited way they are
> supported internally because the internal functions into which
> __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow{,_p} is lowered return COMPLEX_TYPE as a
> hack to return 2 values without using references/pointers
What happens when the usual arithmetic conversions are applied to
operands, one of which is a complex integer type and the other of which is
a wider _BitInt type? I don't see anything in the code to disallow this
case (which would produce an expression with a _Complex _BitInt type), or
any testcases for it.
Other testcases I think should be present (along with any corresponding
changes needed to the code itself):
* Verifying that the new integer constant suffix is rejected for C++.
* Verifying appropriate pedwarn-if-pedantic for the new constant suffix
for versions of C before C2x (and probably for use of _BitInt type
specifiers before C2x as well) - along with the expected -Wc11-c2x-compat
handling (in C2x mode) / -pedantic -Wno-c11-c2x-compat in older modes.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[email protected]
