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" }
-}