Imported Debian patch 0.9.6+really0.9.3-0.1debian/0.9.6+really0.9.3-0.1

1 files changed, 27 insertions, 49 deletions

diff --git a/tests/test-stdbool.c b/tests/test-stdbool.c
index 1da25d0..fcb534d 100644
--- a/tests/test-stdbool.c
+++ b/tests/test-stdbool.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /* Test of <stdbool.h> substitute.
-   Copyright (C) 2002-2007, 2009-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   Copyright (C) 2002-2007, 2009-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 
    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -16,17 +16,6 @@
 
 /* Written by Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, 2007.  */
 
-/* We want this test to succeed even when using gcc's -Werror; but to
-   do that requires a pragma that didn't exist before 4.3.0.  */
-#ifndef __GNUC__
-# define ADDRESS_CHECK_OKAY
-#elif __GNUC__ < 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3)
-/* No way to silence -Waddress.  */
-#else
-# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Waddress"
-# define ADDRESS_CHECK_OKAY
-#endif
-
 #include <config.h>
 
 #include <stdbool.h>
@@ -50,36 +39,49 @@
  "error: __bool_true_false_are_defined is not defined"
 #endif
 
-/* Several tests cannot be guaranteed with gnulib's <stdbool.h>, at
-   least, not for all compilers and compiler options.  */
-#if HAVE_STDBOOL_H || 3 <= __GNUC__
+#if 0 /* Cannot be guaranteed with gnulib's <stdbool.h>.  */
 struct s { _Bool s: 1; _Bool t; } s;
 #endif
 
 char a[true == 1 ? 1 : -1];
 char b[false == 0 ? 1 : -1];
 char c[__bool_true_false_are_defined == 1 ? 1 : -1];
-#if HAVE_STDBOOL_H || 3 <= __GNUC__ /* See above.  */
+#if 0 /* Cannot be guaranteed with gnulib's <stdbool.h>, at least,
+not for all compilers.  */
 char d[(bool) 0.5 == true ? 1 : -1];
-# ifdef ADDRESS_CHECK_OKAY /* Avoid gcc warning.  */
-/* C99 may plausibly be interpreted as not requiring support for a cast from
-   a variable's address to bool in a static initializer.  So treat it like a
-   GCC extension.  */
-#  ifdef __GNUC__
 bool e = &s;
-#  endif
-# endif
 char f[(_Bool) 0.0 == false ? 1 : -1];
 #endif
 char g[true];
 char h[sizeof (_Bool)];
-#if HAVE_STDBOOL_H || 3 <= __GNUC__ /* See above.  */
+#if 0 /* See above.  */
 char i[sizeof s.t];
 #endif
 enum { j = false, k = true, l = false * true, m = true * 256 };
 _Bool n[m];
 char o[sizeof n == m * sizeof n[0] ? 1 : -1];
 char p[-1 - (_Bool) 0 < 0 && -1 - (bool) 0 < 0 ? 1 : -1];
+#if 0 /* Cannot be guaranteed with gnulib's <stdbool.h>.  */
+#if defined __xlc__ || defined __GNUC__
+ /* Catch a bug in IBM AIX xlc compiler version 6.0.0.0
+    reported by James Lemley on 2005-10-05; see
+    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-10/msg00086.html
+    This test is not quite right, since xlc is allowed to
+    reject this program, as the initializer for xlcbug is
+    not one of the forms that C requires support for.
+    However, doing the test right would require a run-time
+    test, and that would make cross-compilation harder.
+    Let us hope that IBM fixes the xlc bug, and also adds
+    support for this kind of constant expression.  In the
+    meantime, this test will reject xlc, which is OK, since
+    our stdbool.h substitute should suffice.  We also test
+    this with GCC, where it should work, to detect more
+    quickly whether someone messes up the test in the
+    future.  */
+ char digs[] = "0123456789";
+ int xlcbug = 1 / (&(digs + 5)[-2 + (bool) 1] == &digs[4] ? 1 : -1);
+#endif
+#endif
 /* Catch a bug in an HP-UX C compiler.  See
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg02303.html
    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-11/msg00161.html
@@ -90,29 +92,5 @@ _Bool *pq = &q;
 int
 main ()
 {
-  int error = 0;
-
-#if HAVE_STDBOOL_H || 3 <= __GNUC__ /* See above.  */
-# ifdef ADDRESS_CHECK_OKAY /* Avoid gcc warning.  */
-  /* A cast from a variable's address to bool is valid in expressions.  */
-  {
-    bool e1 = &s;
-    if (!e1)
-      error = 1;
-  }
-# endif
-#endif
-
-  /* Catch a bug in IBM AIX xlc compiler version 6.0.0.0
-     reported by James Lemley on 2005-10-05; see
-     http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-10/msg00086.html
-     This is a runtime test, since a corresponding compile-time
-     test would rely on initializer extensions.  */
-  {
-    char digs[] = "0123456789";
-    if (&(digs + 5)[-2 + (bool) 1] != &digs[4])
-      error = 1;
-  }
-
-  return error;
+  return 0;
 }