diff options
author | Dan Albert <danalbert@google.com> | 2016-02-24 13:48:45 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Dan Albert <danalbert@google.com> | 2016-02-24 13:51:18 -0800 |
commit | b9de1157289455b0ca26daff519d4a0ddcd1fa13 (patch) | |
tree | 4c56cc0a34b91f17033a40a455f26652304f7b8d /gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr20280.C | |
parent | 098157a754787181cfa10e71325832448ddcea98 (diff) | |
download | toolchain_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.C | 63 |
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" } -} |