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 jos...@codesourcery.com