This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix up COMPLEX_EXPR pretty-printing (PR c++/35334)


On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> 2008/11/11 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
> 
> > +{
> > +  ((__complex__ int)i)();              /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +  ((__complex__ int)j)();              /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +  ((__complex__ int)k)();              /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +  ((__complex__ long double)l)();      /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +  ((__complex__ long double)m)();      /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +  ((__complex__ long double)n)();      /* { dg-error "is not a function" } */
> > +}
> 
> These testcases (and the C++ ones) would work with or without your
> patch, wouldn't they?

That's true, but it is something that has been done for all the
"not supported by" testcases I remember during last few years.
I don't think we should match the exact spelling of the diagnostics,
that keeps changing over time.  Perhaps just ensure
"not supported by" isn't matched on any line.

	Jakub


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]