From patchwork Wed Jun 27 19:21:05 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Kai Tietz X-Patchwork-Id: 167732 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95613B6F86 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:21:26 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1341429687; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:Received:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To: Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=so6z01Z 8U7STu2a6FeNowpmBZzQ=; b=rstWwkxyhPiR/rN5tBlN+hVbd49BjR+ZqAS2W/v Sizt0c/FJxpt1Asp+X4HzrMt5Qzl+Gue980YkCbImhd8NMFi7BfZu1G41eJA/HFM dj3vaYo1EH9Y/y5fuD7OC9R4YLnqKZpmU1eT5IBX2VHhSTEhssX/KsiR1jk7Mf7p 7oOw= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:MIME-Version:Received:Received:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=vAlFkAGUCQKYhz3tm+Y6kPa8xosq7qhcqBhHFKKl8GjFVccdlA8yvLTrNU4sVe 1YtHFGZIopJaKQiJ0BmdmfHGbGu+PJzuIc67JEGiztqhrH/aKd6J0I7lAKeOmq0U 8x4SEevosN7Xw2Mc0KdjcsDXt0r6nKEJ1M65vgXtElW9Q=; Received: (qmail 31978 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2012 19:21:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 31966 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2012 19:21:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:21:06 +0000 Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so1119783wgb.8 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:21:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.194.195 with SMTP id m45mr11758091wen.8.1340824865559; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.16.21 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:21:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [patch testsuite]: Fix another LP64 vs LLP64 issue From: Kai Tietz To: GCC Patches Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi, this patch fixes a testsuite-failure for LLP64 targets. ChangeLog 2012-06-27 Kai Tietz * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-52672.C (ul_ptr): Use SIZE_TYPE instead of hard-coded 'unsigned long'. Tested for x86_64-w64-mingw32, and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for apply? Regards, Kai // { dg-error "" } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-52672.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-52672.C (revision 189009) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-52672.C (working copy) @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ // { dg-do compile } // { dg-options "-std=c++11" } -typedef unsigned long * ul_ptr; +__extension__ typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ * ul_ptr; constexpr unsigned long a = *((ul_ptr)0x0); // { dg-error "" } constexpr unsigned long b = *((ul_ptr)(*((ul_ptr)0x0))); // { dg-error "" } constexpr unsigned long c = *((ul_ptr)*((ul_ptr)(*((ul_ptr)0x0))));