From 82efaf43d83897c116f79ba2ac5929c106d7eeba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Merrill Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:36:03 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] re PR c++/10091 ([parisc] ICE in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-lang.c:307) PR c++/10091 * expr.c (expand_expr) [ADDR_EXPR]: Disallow taking the address of an unaligned member of TREE_ADDRESSABLE type. * cp/typeck.c (build_class_member_access_expr): Compare TYPE_MAIN_VARIANTs. From-SVN: r64523 --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..5effc3b1c1e --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +// PR c++/10091 + +// Bug: We were dying because in general, B::a doesn't have enough +// alignment for us to take its address. But if the B is C::b, it does +// have enough alignment, and we should be able to determine that. + +// This only failed on STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets (i.e. not i686) + +struct A { + int i; + + A(); + A(const A&); + A& operator=(const A&); +}; + +struct B { + A a; +} __attribute__ ((packed)); + +struct C { + B b; + int j; +}; + +void f (const A&); +void g (const C& c) +{ + f (c.b.a); +} -- 2.30.2