Pass structures through ?:, test for fp too (grischka-2005-09-25 case_1)
This patch was originally posted in grischka's 2005-09-25 email as
required fix case_1 to compile gcc 2.95.  This adds tests to ensure
that both structures and function pointers can pass through the conditional
operator ?:. The tests were tweaked by David A. Wheeler to merge the test cases
into the standard tcc test suite.  This patch also modifies tcc so that
structures can be passed through conditional operators.
Note that this patch does NOT modify tcc to permit function pointers to pass
through ?:, because although such a patch WAS in grischka's patch, an
equivalent change was already in tcc by the time this version of the patch
was created.

diff -ur tinycc-rl-1.0.0-orig/tcc.c tinycc-rl-1.0.0-grischka1/tcc.c
--- tinycc-rl-1.0.0-orig/tcc.c	2007-04-18 14:52:22.000000000 -0400
+++ tinycc-rl-1.0.0-grischka1/tcc.c	2007-05-03 13:15:48.000000000 -0400
@@ -7026,6 +7026,8 @@
                 
             /* now we convert second operand */
             gen_cast(&type);
+            if (VT_STRUCT == (vtop->type.t & VT_BTYPE))
+                gaddrof();
             rc = RC_INT;
             if (is_float(type.t)) {
                 rc = RC_FLOAT;
@@ -7043,6 +7045,8 @@
             /* put again first value and cast it */
             *vtop = sv;
             gen_cast(&type);
+            if (VT_STRUCT == (vtop->type.t & VT_BTYPE))
+                gaddrof();
             r1 = gv(rc);
             move_reg(r2, r1);
             vtop->r = r2;
diff -ur tinycc-rl-1.0.0-orig/tests/tcctest.c tinycc-rl-1.0.0-grischka1/tests/tcctest.c
--- tinycc-rl-1.0.0-orig/tests/tcctest.c	2007-04-18 14:52:22.000000000 -0400
+++ tinycc-rl-1.0.0-grischka1/tests/tcctest.c	2007-05-03 13:18:43.000000000 -0400
@@ -284,6 +284,16 @@
 
 }
 
+int some_fn(int x)
+{
+    return x;
+}
+
+int other_fn(int x)
+{
+    return x*2;
+}
+
 int op(a,b)
 {
     return a / b;
@@ -904,6 +914,28 @@
         }
     }
 
+    /* Test passing structs & function pointers though conditional
+     * operator ? :.  This is bug grischka-20050929 case_1 */
+    {
+        struct test1 { int a, b, c; };
+        struct test1 t0 = {10,20,30};
+        struct test1 t1 = {11,21,31};
+        struct test1 tx = {0,0,0};
+        int (*pfn)(int);
+        int f = 0;
+
+        tx = f==0 ? t0 : t1;
+        printf("case_1.1: 10,20,30 -> %d,%d,%d\n", tx.a, tx.b, tx.c);
+
+        /* This tests to see that function pointers correctly pass through
+           the conditional operator ?:.  This tests for
+           grischka-20050929 case_1.2.  Note that this was already FIXED
+           in rl-1.0.0, but we want to TEST for it too. */
+        pfn = f ? some_fn : other_fn;
+        printf("case_1.2: other -> %s\n", 1==pfn(1)?"some":"other");
+    }
+
+
     /* test ? : GCC extension */
     {
         static int v1 = 34 ? : -1; /* constant case */