https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It's that way in the original BIND_EXPR already. So it looks like we need to
handle this gracefully :/
Index: gcc/gimple-low.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/gimple-low.c (revision 240964)
+++ gcc/gimple-low.c (working copy)
@@ -420,18 +420,24 @@ lower_gimple_bind (gimple_stmt_iterator
/* Scrap DECL_CHAIN up to BLOCK_VARS to ease GC after we no longer
need gimple_bind_vars. */
tree next;
- tree end = NULL_TREE;
+ /* BLOCK_VARS and gimple_bind_vars share a common sub-chain. Find
+ it by marking all BLOCK_VARS. */
if (gimple_bind_block (stmt))
- end = BLOCK_VARS (gimple_bind_block (stmt));
- for (tree var = gimple_bind_vars (stmt); var != end; var = next)
+ for (tree t = BLOCK_VARS (gimple_bind_block (stmt)); t; t = DECL_CHAIN
(t))
+ {
+ gcc_checking_assert (! TREE_VISITED (t));
+ TREE_VISITED (t) = 1;
+ }
+ for (tree var = gimple_bind_vars (stmt);
+ var && ! TREE_VISITED (var); var = next)
{
- /* Ugh, something is violating the constraint that BLOCK_VARS
- is a sub-chain of gimple_bind_vars. */
- if (! var)
- break;
next = DECL_CHAIN (var);
DECL_CHAIN (var) = NULL_TREE;
}
+ /* Unmark BLOCK_VARS. */
+ if (gimple_bind_block (stmt))
+ for (tree t = BLOCK_VARS (gimple_bind_block (stmt)); t; t = DECL_CHAIN
(t))
+ TREE_VISITED (t) = 0;
lower_sequence (gimple_bind_body_ptr (stmt), data);
fixes it.
