aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDan Albert <danalbert@google.com>2016-02-24 13:48:45 -0800
committerDan Albert <danalbert@google.com>2016-02-24 13:51:18 -0800
commitb9de1157289455b0ca26daff519d4a0ddcd1fa13 (patch)
tree4c56cc0a34b91f17033a40a455f26652304f7b8d /gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C
parent098157a754787181cfa10e71325832448ddcea98 (diff)
downloadtoolchain_gcc-b9de1157289455b0ca26daff519d4a0ddcd1fa13.tar.gz
toolchain_gcc-b9de1157289455b0ca26daff519d4a0ddcd1fa13.tar.bz2
toolchain_gcc-b9de1157289455b0ca26daff519d4a0ddcd1fa13.zip
Update 4.8.1 to 4.8.3.
My previous drop was the wrong version. The platform mingw is currently using 4.8.3, not 4.8.1 (not sure how I got that wrong). From ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.8.3/gcc-4.8.3.tar.bz2. Bug: http://b/26523949 Change-Id: Id85f1bdcbbaf78c7d0b5a69e74c798a08f341c35
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C')
-rw-r--r--gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C63
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 63 deletions
diff --git a/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C b/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C
deleted file mode 100644
index ec4dad706..000000000
--- a/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-// PR c++/20280
-
-// { dg-do compile }
-
-// Gimplification of the COND_EXPR used to fail because it had an
-// addressable type, and create_tmp_var rejected that.
-
-struct A
-{
- ~A();
-};
-
-struct B : A {};
-
-A& foo();
-
-void bar(bool b)
-{
- (B&) (b ? foo() : foo());
-}
-
-// Make sure bit-fields and addressable types don't cause crashes.
-// These were not in the original bug report.
-
-// Added by Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
-
-// Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation
-
-struct X
-{
- long i : 32, j, k : 32;
-};
-
-void g(long&);
-void h(const long&);
-
-void f(X &x, bool b)
-{
- (b ? x.i : x.j) = 1;
- (b ? x.j : x.k) = 2;
- (b ? x.i : x.k) = 3;
-
- (void)(b ? x.i : x.j);
- (void)(b ? x.i : x.k);
- (void)(b ? x.j : x.k);
-
- g (b ? x.i : x.j); // { dg-error "cannot bind bitfield" }
- g (b ? x.i : x.k); // { dg-error "cannot bind bitfield" }
- g (b ? x.j : x.k); // { dg-error "cannot bind bitfield" }
-
- // It's not entirely clear whether these should be accepted. The
- // conditional expressions are lvalues for sure, and 8.5.3/5 exempts
- // lvalues for bit-fields, but it's not clear that conditional
- // expressions that are lvalues and that have at least one possible
- // result that is a bit-field lvalue meets this condition.
- h (b ? x.i : x.j);
- h (b ? x.i : x.k);
- h (b ? x.j : x.k);
-
- (long &)(b ? x.i : x.j); // { dg-error "address of bit-field" }
- (long &)(b ? x.i : x.k); // { dg-error "address of bit-field" }
- (long &)(b ? x.j : x.k); // { dg-error "address of bit-field" }
-}