aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c')
-rw-r--r--gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c16
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c3082ee38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* Test for constraints on constant expressions. In C90 it is clear that
+ certain constructs are not permitted in unevaluated parts of an
+ expression (except in sizeof); in C99 it might fall within implementation
+ latitude; and if the operands are suitable, diagnostics should not be
+ issued.
+*/
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>; inspired by
+ http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524271595&fmt=text by Peter Seebach.
+*/
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=iso9899:1999 -pedantic-errors" } */
+
+/* The comma operator is in a subexpression that is not evaluated, so OK
+ by C99. In C90 a diagnostic is required since it is not in a sizeof.
+*/
+int i = (1 ? 0 : (2, 3));