On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:11:23PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs during error-recovery, as build_c_cast calls
> note_integer_operands on error_mark_node and that wraps it into
> C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR which is unexpected and causes ICE later on.
> Seems most other callers of note_integer_operands check early if something
> is error_mark_node and return before calling note_integer_operands on it.
Yeah.
> The following patch fixes it by not calling on error_mark_node, another
> possibility would be to handle error_mark_node in note_integer_operands and
> just return it.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
This looks OK to me, thanks.
> 2021-06-24 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR c/101171
> * c-typeck.c (build_c_cast): Don't call note_integer_operands on
> error_mark_node.
>
> * gcc.dg/pr101171.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c.jj 2021-06-23 13:33:00.375434219 +0200
> +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c 2021-06-23 17:51:17.501401208 +0200
> @@ -6131,6 +6131,7 @@ build_c_cast (location_t loc, tree type,
> return value reflects this. */
> if (int_operands
> && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
> + && value != error_mark_node
> && !EXPR_INT_CONST_OPERANDS (value))
> value = note_integer_operands (value);
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr101171.c.jj 2021-06-23 17:56:53.409896019
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr101171.c 2021-06-23 17:56:28.668227851 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +/* PR c/101171 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "" } */
> +
> +extern void foo (void);
> +int x = 0x1234;
> +
> +void
> +bar (void)
> +{
> + if (x != (sizeof ((enum T) 0x1234))) /* { dg-error "conversion to
> incomplete type" } */
> + foo ();
> +}
>
> Jakub
>
Marek
