[PATCH] Fix up COMPLEX_EXPR pretty-printing (PR c++/35334)
Jakub Jelinek
jakub@redhat.com
Tue Nov 11 14:33:00 GMT 2008
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
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list