Message ID | 20230825204554.2440771-1-lhyatt@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400] | expand |
Hello- May I please ping this one? It's adding a testcase prior to closing the PR. Thanks! https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628488.html -Lewis On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 4:46 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello- > > This is adding a testcase for a PR that was already incidentally fixed. OK > to commit please? Thanks... > > -Lewis > > -- >8 -- > > The PR was fixed by r12-5454. Since the fix was somewhat incidental, > although related, add a testcase from PR90400 too before closing it out. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > PR preprocessor/90400 > * c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c: New test. > --- > gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..4f2cab8d6ab > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-save-temps" } */ > +/* PR preprocessor/90400 */ > + > +#define OUTER(x) x > +#define FOR(x) _Pragma ("GCC unroll 0") for (x) > +void f () > +{ > + /* If the pragma were to be seen prior to the expansion of FOR, as was > + the case before r12-5454, then the unroll pragma would complain > + because the immediately following statement would be ";" rather than > + a loop. */ > + OUTER (; FOR (int i = 0; i != 1; ++i);) /* { dg-bogus {statement expected before ';' token} } */ > +}
Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Hello- > > May I please ping this one? It's adding a testcase prior to closing > the PR. Thanks! > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628488.html OK, thanks. (Not really my area, but someone would probably have objected by now if they were going to.) Richard > > -Lewis > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 4:46 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello- >> >> This is adding a testcase for a PR that was already incidentally fixed. OK >> to commit please? Thanks... >> >> -Lewis >> >> -- >8 -- >> >> The PR was fixed by r12-5454. Since the fix was somewhat incidental, >> although related, add a testcase from PR90400 too before closing it out. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> PR preprocessor/90400 >> * c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c: New test. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..4f2cab8d6ab >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >> +/* { dg-additional-options "-save-temps" } */ >> +/* PR preprocessor/90400 */ >> + >> +#define OUTER(x) x >> +#define FOR(x) _Pragma ("GCC unroll 0") for (x) >> +void f () >> +{ >> + /* If the pragma were to be seen prior to the expansion of FOR, as was >> + the case before r12-5454, then the unroll pragma would complain >> + because the immediately following statement would be ";" rather than >> + a loop. */ >> + OUTER (; FOR (int i = 0; i != 1; ++i);) /* { dg-bogus {statement expected before ';' token} } */ >> +}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..4f2cab8d6ab --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-save-temps" } */ +/* PR preprocessor/90400 */ + +#define OUTER(x) x +#define FOR(x) _Pragma ("GCC unroll 0") for (x) +void f () +{ + /* If the pragma were to be seen prior to the expansion of FOR, as was + the case before r12-5454, then the unroll pragma would complain + because the immediately following statement would be ";" rather than + a loop. */ + OUTER (; FOR (int i = 0; i != 1; ++i);) /* { dg-bogus {statement expected before ';' token} } */ +}