Hello-
This is adding a testcase for a PR that was already incidentally fixed. OK
to commit please? Thanks...
-Lewis
-- >8 --
The PR was fixed by r12-5454. Since the fix was somewhat incidental,
although related, add a testcase from PR90400 too before closing it out.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR preprocessor/90400
* c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c: New test.
---
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4f2cab8d6ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr90400.c
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-save-temps" } */
+/* PR preprocessor/90400 */
+
+#define OUTER(x) x
+#define FOR(x) _Pragma ("GCC unroll 0") for (x)
+void f ()
+{
+ /* If the pragma were to be seen prior to the expansion of FOR, as was
+ the case before r12-5454, then the unroll pragma would complain
+ because the immediately following statement would be ";" rather than
+ a loop. */
+ OUTER (; FOR (int i = 0; i != 1; ++i);) /* { dg-bogus {statement expected
before ';' token} } */
+}
