On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 12:13:26 +0200
Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:47 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran
> <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> > @@ -1135,7 +1135,7 @@ compare_complex (gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr *op2)
> > strings. We return -1 for a < b, 0 for a == b and 1 for a > b.
> > We use the processor's default collating sequence. */
> >
> > -int
> > +signed char
> > gfc_compare_string (gfc_expr *a, gfc_expr *b)
> > {
> > size_t len, alen, blen, i;
> > @@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@ gfc_compare_string (gfc_expr *a, gfc_expr *b)
> > }
>
> Hmm, really? PR 78798 mentions changing int to bool, where
> appropriate, which I think is uncontroversial, but this?
Well we could leave this or all spots alone where a bool is
insufficient, if you prefer.
In the case of gfc_compare_string, the only user is simplify which only
looks at ge/gt/le/lt 0
