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 <lhy...@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} } */
>> +}
