* gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-1.c: New test.

From-SVN: r35577

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 7d0b0a170a44eb9c7924069deb2d3b04ac2e88e4..6fed580e976ee95acf275e47f9b24ac1c16d001e 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2000-08-09  Joseph S. Myers  <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
+
+       * gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-1.c: New test.
+
 2000-08-08  Richard Henderson  <rth@cygnus.com>
 
        * gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c: Declare calloc.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-1.c
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..96d19ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/* 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.
+*/
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>; inspired by
+   http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524271595&fmt=text by Peter Seebach.
+*/
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=iso9899:1990 -pedantic-errors" } */
+
+extern int bar (void);
+
+void
+foo (void)
+{
+  int i;
+  static int j = (1 ? 0 : (i = 2)); /* { dg-error "initial" "assignment" { xfail *-*-* } } */
+  static int k = (1 ? 0 : ++i); /* { dg-error "initial" "increment" { xfail *-*-* } } */
+  static int l = (1 ? 0 : --i); /* { dg-error "initial" "decrement" { xfail *-*-* } } */
+  static int m = (1 ? 0 : bar ()); /* { dg-error "initial" "function call" { xfail *-*-* } } */
+  static int n = (1 ? 0 : (2, 3)); /* { dg-error "initial" "comma" { xfail *-*-* } } */
+}