Re: [PATCH] add g_nonstandard_bool attribute for GIMPLE FE use

[Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Joseph Myers wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 
> > "nonstandard" isn't a very descriptive name.  The leading g_ prefix
> > also looks a little too terse (is that supposed to stand dor GIMPLE?).
> > I would suggest choosing a better name, say, bool_precision.  Since
> 
> Indeed, g_ suggests the GLib API to me, so a name not involving g_ or 
> "nonstandard" seems better.
> 
> The principle of a GIMPLE-front-end-specific attribute for this sort of 
> thing seems reasonable to me.

OK, does "integral_precision" sound better?  (supposed to cover
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P types)  Or would "precision" be preferred (I used
g_ to not conflict with possible future C attributes).  Note that
GCCs "nonstandard boolean types" are signed as opposed to
bool which is unsigned so

typedef _Bool bool1 __attribute__((precision(1)));

would maybe result in a surprising result.  One alternative
would be to make the attribute have the signedness specified as well
(C doesn't accept 'unsigned _Bool' or 'signed _Bool') or
simply name the attribute "signed_bool_precision".  I guess the bool case
is really special compared to the desire to eventually allow
declaring of a 3 bit precision signed/unsigned integer type.

Allowing 'signed _Bool' with -fgimple might be another option
of course.

Thanks,
Richard.