From 3135284bfb13354a482f3c9271db6830df9ac9f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Sandiford Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:17:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C: New test. From-SVN: r52160 --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog index 93ef461fc1b..eeb964a9220 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2002-04-11 Richard Sandiford + + * g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C: New test. + 2002-04-10 Janis Johnson * g77.f-torture/execute/6177.f: New test. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..47511934cc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attrib5.C @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +// There were two related problems here, depending on the vintage. At +// one time: +// +// typedef struct A { ... } A __attribute__ ((aligned (16))); +// +// would cause original_types to go into an infinite loop. At other +// times, the attributes applied to an explicit typedef would be lost +// (check_b2 would have a negative size). + +// First check that the declaration is accepted and has an effect. +typedef struct A { int i; } A __attribute__ ((aligned (16))); +int check_A[__alignof__ (A) >= 16 ? 1 : -1]; + +// Check that the alignment is only applied to the typedef. +struct B { int i; }; +namespace N { typedef B B; }; +typedef struct B B __attribute__((aligned (16))); +N::B b1; +B b2; +int check_b1[__alignof__ (b1) == __alignof__ (int) ? 1 : -1]; +int check_b2[__alignof__ (b2) >= 16 ? 1 : -1]; + +// The fix for this case involved a change to lookup_tag. This +// bit just checks against a possible regression. +namespace N { struct C; }; +typedef struct N::C C; // { dg-error "previous declaration" } +struct C; // { dg-error "conflicting types" }