On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:05:12PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > But, unlike normal signed or unsigned integral types or char, cast to
> > bool/_Bool is special, it is actually a comparison != 0.
> > So, I'd say if we want to support arith overflow to bool/_Bool, it should be
> > above with:
> > signed_intNNN_t t = (signed_intNNN_t) x + (signed_intNNN_t) y;
> > z = t != 0;
> > ovf = (signed_intNNN_t) z != t;
>
> And, I really don't see this as useful. Rejecting boolean types there
> makes more sense to me.
I also don't think supporting booleans is worth all the hassle.
Marek
