From 9052d3bebc0b9420a5f9cd8907f5b5c405e7cf7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joseph Myers Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:19:44 +0100 Subject: c90-array-lval-1.c, [...]: New tests. * gcc.dg/c90-array-lval-1.c, gcc.dg/c90-scope-1.c, gcc.dg/c99-array-lval-1.c, gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c, gcc.dg/c99-func-1.c, gcc.dg/c99-func-2.c, gcc.dg/c99-scope-1.c: New tests. From-SVN: r35602 --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c (limited to 'gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c') diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c3082ee --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-1.c @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* Test for constraints on constant expressions. In C90 it is clear that + certain constructs are not permitted in unevaluated parts of an + expression (except in sizeof); in C99 it might fall within implementation + latitude; and if the operands are suitable, diagnostics should not be + issued. +*/ +/* Origin: Joseph Myers ; inspired by + http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524271595&fmt=text by Peter Seebach. +*/ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-std=iso9899:1999 -pedantic-errors" } */ + +/* The comma operator is in a subexpression that is not evaluated, so OK + by C99. In C90 a diagnostic is required since it is not in a sizeof. +*/ +int i = (1 ? 0 : (2, 3)); -- cgit v1.1