* [PATCH] testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400]
@ 2023-08-25 20:45 Lewis Hyatt
2023-09-08 20:14 ` Ping: " Lewis Hyatt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lewis Hyatt @ 2023-08-25 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: Lewis Hyatt
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} } */
+}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Ping: [PATCH] testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400]
2023-08-25 20:45 [PATCH] testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400] Lewis Hyatt
@ 2023-09-08 20:14 ` Lewis Hyatt
2023-09-20 19:46 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lewis Hyatt @ 2023-09-08 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches List
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} } */
> +}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Ping: [PATCH] testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400]
2023-09-08 20:14 ` Ping: " Lewis Hyatt
@ 2023-09-20 19:46 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2023-09-20 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches; +Cc: Lewis Hyatt
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} } */
>> +}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-09-20 19:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-08-25 20:45 [PATCH] testsuite: Add test for already-fixed issue with _Pragma expansion [PR90400] Lewis Hyatt
2023-09-08 20:14 ` Ping: " Lewis Hyatt
2023-09-20 19:46 ` Richard Sandiford
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).