Reading <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01054.html> it occured
to me that we might resolve c/65471, dealing with type interpretation in
_Generic, too. Since it turned out that GCC already does the right thing,
I'm only adding a new test. (We should discard qualifiers from controlling
expression of _Generic.)
Regarding the bit-field issue, it seems that we should do nothing and keep
it implementation-defined for now.
Tested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-06-08 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR c/65471
* gcc.dg/c11-generic-3.c: New test.
diff --git gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c11-generic-3.c
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c11-generic-3.c
index e69de29..8bac21e 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c11-generic-3.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c11-generic-3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* Test C11 _Generic. Test we follow the resolution of DR#423. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c11 -pedantic-errors" } */
+
+char const *a = _Generic ("bla", char *: "");
+char const *b = _Generic ("bla", char[4]: ""); /* { dg-error "not compatible
with any association" } */
+char const *c = _Generic ((int const) { 0 }, int: "");
+char const *d = _Generic ((int const) { 0 }, int const: ""); /* { dg-error
"not compatible with any association" } */
+char const *e = _Generic (+(int const) { 0 }, int: "");
+char const *f = _Generic (+(int const) { 0 }, int const: ""); /* { dg-error
"not compatible with any association" } */
Marek
