[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-29 07:16 ---
Fixed.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-29 07:14 ---
Subject: Bug 40017

Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 29 07:14:20 2009
New Revision: 147971

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147971
Log:
PR target/40017
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (_Bool_keyword): New variable.
(altivec_categorize_keyword, init_vector_keywords,
rs6000_cpu_cpp_builtins): Define _Bool as conditional macro
similar to bool.

* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-types-1.c: Don't expect error for
__vector _Bool.
* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-30.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-31.c: New test.

Added:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-30.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-31.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-types-1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-29 07:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40017

Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 29 07:06:35 2009
New Revision: 147970

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147970
Log:
PR target/40017
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (_Bool_keyword): New variable.
(altivec_categorize_keyword, init_vector_keywords,
rs6000_cpu_cpp_builtins): Define _Bool as conditional macro
similar to bool.

* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-types-1.c: Don't expect error for
__vector _Bool.
* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-30.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-31.c: New test.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-30.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-31.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-types-1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 GCC target triplet||powerpc
   Priority|P3  |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||rejects-valid
   Target Milestone|--- |4.4.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-04 14:39 ---
_Bool would need to be a conditional macro too though, I wonder if some ISO C99
pedantry can't test that _Bool isn't defined or something like that.
But then for C++ it is similar with defined(bool) also being true with
-maltivec instead of false.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-04 14:32 ---
Yes that seems like the right idea; the altivec specs was written before C99
was out.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017

[Bug target/40017] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stdbool.h/altivec.h

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-04 14:30 ---
I'd say handling _Bool the same way as bool after vector would be a good idea.
It has a disadvantage that in addition to the (I'd say desirable):
#include 
#include 
...
vector bool int i;
also
vector _Bool int i;
would be accepted, but the advantages IMHO outweight disadvantages.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dje at gcc dot gnu dot org,
   ||bje at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40017