"Joseph S. Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, that testcase looks like what I had in mind, but you don't need the
> dg-* directives (the defaults in gcc.c-torture/compile should be fine).
>
>> BTW, is it valid C?
>
> I think this should be considered the same as passing a type such as
> "short" that can never be the promoted argument type: undefined behavior
> at runtime if the call is executed.
Thanks for the explanation. I've committed the testcase below
on trunk.
Regards,
kaz
--
2011-04-27 Kaz Kojima <[email protected]>
PR target/48767
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c: New test.
diff -uprN ORIG/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c
--- ORIG/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c 1970-01-01
09:00:00.000000000 +0900
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c 2011-04-27
19:28:47.000000000 +0900
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* PR target/48767 */
+
+void
+foo (__builtin_va_list ap)
+{
+ __builtin_va_arg (ap, void);
+}
