Message ID | 87aa5hs4gz.fsf@firetop.home |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 01/21/2012 06:02 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Does this mean that the { target c++98 } lines are acceptable in C++11, > while the { xfail c++11 } lines are still errors in C++11, but aren't > detected? Right. > The reason for asking is that the line: > > g<(void (A::*)())&B::f>(); // { dg-error "" } > > also fails for C++11 on targets that define TARGET_PTRMEMFUNC_VBIT_LOCATION > to ptrmemfunc_vbit_in_delta. Is that expected, and if so, is the patch > below OK? Or should I try to look at it a bit further first? I'm not sure why that would be, but the patch is OK. I wouldn't worry about trying to get this line right until we fix the other xfails. Jason
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ptrmem6.C =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ptrmem6.C 2012-01-21 10:53:09.000000000 +0000 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ptrmem6.C 2012-01-21 10:57:31.000000000 +0000 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ int main() { h<&B::j>(); // { dg-error "" } g<(void (A::*)()) &A::f>(); // { dg-error "" "" { xfail c++11 } } h<(int A::*) &A::i>(); // { dg-error "" "" { xfail c++11 } } - g<(void (A::*)()) &B::f>(); // { dg-error "" } + g<(void (A::*)()) &B::f>(); // { dg-error "" "" { xfail { c++11 && { arm*-*-* mips*-*-* } } } } h<(int A::*) &B::j>(); // { dg-error "" } g<(void (A::*)()) 0>(); // { dg-error "" "" { target c++98 } } h<(int A::*) 0>(); // { dg-error "" "" { target c++98 } }