https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> --- (In reply to sandra from comment #9) > I'm not sure what a null BIND_EXPR_BLOCK actually means, or if it might be a > bug elsewhere that such a thing is being created? The comments on BIND_EXPR > in tree.def seem to imply that there is always an associated block. If it's > permissible, maybe the fix ought to pass through the superblock pointer in > the recursive call instead of the null block pointer. My best guess is to ask Richard. If he doesn't know, he is likely to know someone who will.