https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> > Like that yes. Pre-approved if it survives regcheck, too. Thanks!
> >
> > Please add the testcase as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Like that yes. Pre-approved if it survives regcheck, too. Thanks!
Please add the testcase as well of course :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc
> index 78c839ab425..1675198a146 100644
> --- a/gcc/expr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/expr.cc
> @@ -6423,13 +6423,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Yeah. It should just return 1 like the other scalar types?
So the code did look for OPAQUE_TYPE and expected never to see it, so it was on
an error path.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah. It should just return 1 like the other scalar types?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Given where this is ICEing, I'm guessing this is non-target specific issue in
handling opaque types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106016
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
