From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2312A3857BA2; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:16:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2312A3857BA2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1706098591;
	bh=rpyDKlp0u+rjaF3rDy2a53fIQL5PG9KeVLNlQbNTF5s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=nB+uE5iqj2FJTNqSeAGMQ+ofB0DD0R2wYSsxhfoZRisq9F1KEdt1B4LeesU7eRiRl
	 AdEK/TeIZroCCYABUQhDyxhb4lWID6e5aKJkW00tNQuyzoO/5HnF7PX7t4Iu/OLf1m
	 WvnKivzLdtBRRX2lKpvlVvQAhySsuAPezQOpbhRI=
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/31282] [gdb/fortran] logical type doesn't match
 documentation of TYPE_CODE_BOOL
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:16:30 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-31282-4717-oRChvVbJlR@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-31282-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-31282-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31282

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #1)
> It's also worth considering how hardbool should work.

Ah, interesting, thanks.  I found some explanation here (
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/Hardened-Booleans.html ).

So let's try with this program:
...
with Text_IO; use Text_IO;

procedure hello is
   type HBool is new Boolean;
   for HBool use (0, 1);
   for HBool'Size use 8;
   A : HBool :=3D True;
begin
   Put_Line("Hello world!");
end hello;
...

This dwarf is generated, it's a subrange_type:
...
 <2><168e>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_subrange_type)
    <168f>   DW_AT_lower_bound : 0
    <1690>   DW_AT_upper_bound : 1
    <1691>   DW_AT_name        : hello__hbool
    <1695>   DW_AT_type        : <0x16a7>
 <1><16a7>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_base_type)
    <16a8>   DW_AT_byte_size   : 1
    <16a9>   DW_AT_encoding    : 2      (boolean)
    <16aa>   DW_AT_name        : hello__hboolB
    <16ae>   DW_AT_artificial  : 1
...

Now let's try this change:
...
-   for HBool use (0, 1);
+   for HBool use (0, 2);
...

Also a subrange_type, but with a different basis type.
...
 <2><168a>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_enumeration_type)
    <168b>   DW_AT_name        : hello__hboolB
    <168f>   DW_AT_encoding    : 7      (unsigned)
    <1690>   DW_AT_byte_size   : 1
    <1694>   DW_AT_artificial  : 1
 <3><1698>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_enumerator)
    <1699>   DW_AT_name        : false
    <169d>   DW_AT_const_value : 0
 <3><169e>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_enumerator)
    <169f>   DW_AT_name        : true
    <16a3>   DW_AT_const_value : 2
 <2><16a5>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subrange_type)
    <16a6>   DW_AT_lower_bound : 0
    <16a7>   DW_AT_upper_bound : 2
    <16a8>   DW_AT_name        : hello__hbool
    <16ac>   DW_AT_type        : <0x168a>
...

Likewise for:
...
-   for HBool use (0, 1);
+   for HBool use (1, 2);
...
which sort of suggests that DW_ATE_boolean means 0/1, but that is contradic=
ted
by the use of DW_ATE_boolean in ifort.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=