testsuite: Accept pmf-vbit-in-delta extra warning
cp_build_binary_op, that issues -Waddress warnings, issues an extra warning on arm targets, that g++.dg/warn/Waddress-5.C does not expect when comparing a pointer-to-member-function literal with null. The reason for the extra warning is that, on arm targets, TARGET_PTRMEMFUNC_VBIT_LOCATION == ptrmemfunc_vbit_in_delta, which causes a different path to be taken, that extracts the pointer-to-function and the delta fields (minus the vbit) and compares each one with zero. It's when comparing this pointer-to-function with zero, in a recursive cp_build_binary_op, that another warning is issued. I suppose there should be a way to skip the warning in this recursive call, without disabling other warnings that might be issued there, but this patch only arranges for the test to tolerate the extra warning. for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog * g++.dg/warn/Waddress-5.C: Tolerate extra -Waddress warning.
This commit is contained in:
parent
d70f49e982
commit
1a45573d3d
1 changed files with 5 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ void T (bool);
|
|||
void warn_memptr_if ()
|
||||
{
|
||||
// Exercise warnings for addresses of nonstatic member functions.
|
||||
if (&A::f == 0) // { dg-warning "the address '&A::f'" }
|
||||
// On targets with TARGET_PTRMEMFUNC_VBIT_LOCATION ==
|
||||
// ptrmemfunc_vbit_in_delta, cp_build_binary_op recurses to compare
|
||||
// the pfn from the ptrmemfunc with null, so we get two warnings.
|
||||
// This matches both. ??? Should we disable one of them?
|
||||
if (&A::f == 0) // { dg-warning "A::f" }
|
||||
T (0);
|
||||
|
||||
if (&A::vf) // { dg-warning "-Waddress" }
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue