Viewing file:  pr20280.C (1.61 KB) -rw-r--r--
Select action/file-type:
 (+) |  (+) |  (+) | Code (+) | Session (+) |  (+) | SDB (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |
// 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 bit-field" }
g (b ? x.i : x.k); // { dg-error "cannot bind bit-field" }
g (b ? x.j : x.k); // { dg-error "cannot bind bit-field" }
// 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 "18:attempt to take address of bit-field" }
(long &)(b ? x.i : x.k); // { dg-error "18:attempt to take address of bit-field" }
// { dg-error "24:attempt to take address of bit-field" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
(long &)(b ? x.j : x.k); // { dg-error "24:attempt to take address of bit-field" }
}
|
