[sdcc-devel] [ sdcc-Bugs-2932819 ] _Bool data type doesn't work

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #2932819, was opened at 2010-01-15 12:52
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by spth
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=2932819&group_id=599

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: C-Front End
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
>Assigned to: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Summary: _Bool data type doesn't work

Initial Comment:
_Bool is a C99 keyword. AFAIK it should behave identical to sdcc's __bit.
However in sdcc there's just the line "#define _Bool __bit" in stdbool.h. However the C standard requires the _Bool data type even when stdbool.h is not included. Only support for bool depends on including stdbool.h

I suggest replacing the sdcc-specific keyword __bit by the C keyword _Bool.

I use sdcc 2.9.6 #5630.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2011-09-19 14:21

Message:
Fixed in svn revision #6860, by implementing bool for pic14 and pic16,
which were the last ports to have no bool at all.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2011-09-02 10:00

Message:
The problem in bug1723128.c is not a regression: The regression test is
wrapped in #ifdef __bool_true_false_are_defined, which previously was not
defined for hc08. Looking at the generated code all places where bool is
used look ok; it seems the bug is in the part of the code that does not use
bool.

I'll thus disable bug1723128.c for hc08 again and file a separate bug
report.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock)
Date: 2011-09-02 08:36

Message:
Philipp,

Revision #6799 introduced a problem in regression test bug1723128.c for
hc08. It does not print correctly and takes 10x more ticks. But is not
recognized as a failure.

Maarten

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2011-09-01 15:37

Message:
This bug report now (with the implementation of _Bool for hc08 in revision
#6799) only affects the pic14 and pic16 ports.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2010-08-08 12:11

Message:
The second set of regression tests has been added and the
increment/decrement problem fixed.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2010-08-07 00:35

Message:
I created a new bugreport for the increment/decrement problem: #3040914.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock)
Date: 2010-08-05 22:50

Message:
When I add the second set to the bool.c regression test the last two fail
for z80. They pass with __bit on ds390 and mcs51.

	E = 0;   ASSERT(!E); // sets E to 0
	E = 1;   ASSERT(E);  // sets E to 1
	E = 4;   ASSERT(E);  // sets E to 1
	E = 0.5; ASSERT(E);  // sets E to 1
	E++;     ASSERT(E);  // sets E to 1
	E--;     ASSERT(!E); // sets E to 1-E

Maarten

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2010-01-25 15:45

Message:
I added a test in revision #5655 (support/regression/bool.c).
It includes the tests from the first part of Jan's post. Feel free to
extend it.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Borut Ražem (borutr)
Date: 2010-01-25 15:27

Message:
Philipp,

can you please add also a _Bool regression test?

I think that examples Jan pointed out would be OK:

----8<----
Now, two technicalities, both illustrated by a snippet of code from Derek
Jones's book (page 489, "verse" 474, chapter 6.2.5):

1. (*) - conforming arithmetics of _Bool is not trivial, regardless of if
it is implemented as a bit or a byte:
 extern _Bool E;

 void f(void)
 {
   if (((E ? 1 : 0) != (!(!E))) ||
     ((E += 2) != 1) ||
     ((--E, --E, E) != E))
     printf("This is not a conforming implementation\n");
 }


2. _Bool in struct can *not* be directly replaced for bitfield of size 1:

 void g(void)
 {
   _Bool Q;
   struct {
     unsigned int u_bit :1;
   } u;
   #define U (u.ubit)

   Q = 0; U = 0; // sets both to 0
   Q = 1; U = 1; // sets both to 1
   Q = 4; U = 4; // sets Q to 1, U to 0
   Q = 0.5; U = 0.5; // sets Q to 1, U to 0
   Q++; U++; // sets Q to 1; sets U to 1-U
   Q--; U--; // sets Q to 1-Q; sets U to 1-U
 }
---->8----

The second example is also applicable for bitfields regression test.

Borut

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2010-01-25 10:25

Message:
This bug report no longer applies to the z80 and gbz80 ports.

It can be closed once all ports have true _Bool support.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock)
Date: 2010-01-17 19:46

Message:
Originally I took the lazy and compatible route when I implemented
stdbool.h but I have no problem with this to do it "right".

Maarten

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=2932819&group_id=599