The testcase for pr 66345 assumes size_t is "unsigned long" instead of
using the real type, which causes failures on some 16-bit targets.
Ok?
Also, I note that some tests check for __SIZE_TYPE__ as I do below,
and others use it unconditionally as a replacement for size_t. Is
there a convention?
* gcc.dg/torture/pr66345.c: Fix assumption about size_t type.
2015-06-08 Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com>
Index: gcc.dg/torture/pr66345.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.dg/torture/pr66345.c (revision 224260)
+++ gcc.dg/torture/pr66345.c (working copy)
@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
-extern int snprintf (char *, unsigned long, const char *, ...);
+#ifdef __SIZE_TYPE__
+typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
+#else
+typedef unsigned int size_t;
+#endif
+
+extern int snprintf (char *, size_t, const char *, ...);
const char a[] = "";
int b;
void
get_bar ()
{
snprintf (0, 0, "%s", &a[b]);
