expr_fold_strict_bool.c revision 1.4 
1/*	$NetBSD: expr_fold_strict_bool.c,v 1.4 2025/04/12 15:49:49 rillig Exp $	*/
2# 3 "expr_fold_strict_bool.c"
3
4/*
5 * Test constant folding in strict bool mode.
6 *
7 * In this mode, _Bool is not an unsigned integer type.  In fact, it is not
8 * an arithmetic type at all.
9 */
10
11/* lint1-extra-flags: -T */
12
13typedef long long int64_t;
14typedef unsigned long long uint64_t;
15
16struct fold_64_bit {
17
18	_Bool lt_signed_small_ok: -3LL < 1LL ? 1 : -1;
19	/* expect+1: error: invalid bit-field size: 255 [36] */
20	_Bool lt_signed_small_bad: 1LL < -3LL ? 1 : -1;
21
22	_Bool lt_signed_big_ok: (int64_t)(1ULL << 63) < 1LL ? 1 : -1;
23	/* expect+1: error: invalid bit-field size: 255 [36] */
24	_Bool lt_signed_big_bad: 1LL < (int64_t)(1ULL << 63) ? 1 : -1;
25
26	_Bool lt_unsigned_small_ok: 1ULL < 3ULL ? 1 : -1;
27	/* expect+1: error: invalid bit-field size: 255 [36] */
28	_Bool lt_unsigned_small_bad: 3ULL < 1ULL ? 1 : -1;
29
30	/*
31	 * Before tree.c 1.345 from 2021-08-22, lint wrongly assumed that the
32	 * result of all binary operators were the common arithmetic type,
33	 * but that was wrong for the comparison operators.  The expression
34	 * '1ULL < 2ULL' does not have type 'unsigned long long' but 'int' in
35	 * default mode, or '_Bool' in strict bool mode.
36	 */
37	_Bool lt_unsigned_big_ok: 1ULL < 1ULL << 63 ? 1 : -1;
38	/* expect+1: error: invalid bit-field size: 255 [36] */
39	_Bool lt_unsigned_big_bad: 1ULL << 63 < 1ULL ? 1 : -1;
40};
41