/* $NetBSD: expr_fold_strict_bool.c,v 1.2 2021/08/22 21:17:04 rillig Exp $ */ # 3 "expr_fold_strict_bool.c" /* * Test constant folding in strict bool mode. * * In this mode, _Bool is not an unsigned integer type. In fact, it is not * an arithmetic type at all. */ /* lint1-extra-flags: -T */ /* lint1-only-if: lp64 */ typedef long long int64_t; typedef unsigned long long uint64_t; struct fold_64_bit { _Bool lt_signed_small_ok: -3LL < 1LL ? 1 : -1; /* expect+1: error: illegal bit-field size: 255 [36] */ _Bool lt_signed_small_bad: 1LL < -3LL ? 1 : -1; _Bool lt_signed_big_ok: (int64_t)(1ULL << 63) < 1LL ? 1 : -1; /* expect+1: error: illegal bit-field size: 255 [36] */ _Bool lt_signed_big_bad: 1LL < (int64_t)(1ULL << 63) ? 1 : -1; _Bool lt_unsigned_small_ok: 1ULL < 3ULL ? 1 : -1; /* expect+1: error: illegal bit-field size: 255 [36] */ _Bool lt_unsigned_small_bad: 3ULL < 1ULL ? 1 : -1; /* * Before tree.c 1.345 from 2021-08-22, lint wrongly assumed that the * result of all binary operators were the common arithmetic type, * but that was wrong for the comparison operators. The expression * '1ULL < 2ULL' does not have type 'unsigned long long' but 'int' in * default mode, or '_Bool' in strict bool mode. */ _Bool lt_unsigned_big_ok: 1ULL < 1ULL << 63 ? 1 : -1; /* expect+1: error: illegal bit-field size: 255 [36] */ _Bool lt_unsigned_big_bad: 1ULL << 63 < 1ULL ? 1 : -1; }; |