Thanks.
--- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c 2010/11/09 03:25:21 118480
+++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c 2010/11/09 03:31:16 118481
@@ -34,3 +34,7 @@
__typeof__((x.x+=1)+1) y;
__typeof__(x.x<<1) y;
int y;
+
+struct PR8025 {
+ double : 2; // expected-error{{anonymous bit-field has non-integral
type 'double'}}
+};
As far as I can say, this test case is not exactly testing the bug in
question, which was the missing location hint of the diagnostic (and I
was not sure how to write one that would). There's already a test case
in that file that's testing the diagnostic as such.
Best regards,
Jakub Wieczorek
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
