This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C PATCH to fix c/79758 (ICE-on-invalid with function redefinition and old style decls)
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>
- To: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:47:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: C PATCH to fix c/79758 (ICE-on-invalid with function redefinition and old style decls)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170302173545.GJ3172@redhat.com>
On 03/02/2017 06:35 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
While at it, I fixed wrong formatting in the nearby code. Also use NULL_TREE
instead of 0 where appropriate. I really dislike those zeros-as-trees; one
day I'll just go and turn them into NULL_TREEs.
I sympathize, but it makes it harder to see which parts of the patch are
actual changes. Generally it's best to separate functional and
formatting changes.
@@ -8996,7 +8999,7 @@ store_parm_decls_oldstyle (tree fndecl, const struct c_arg_info *arg_info)
declared for the arg. ISO C says we take the unqualified
type for parameters declared with qualified type. */
if (TREE_TYPE (parm) != error_mark_node
- && TREE_TYPE (type) != error_mark_node
+ && TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (type)) != error_mark_node
&& ((TYPE_ATOMIC (DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm))
!= TYPE_ATOMIC (TREE_VALUE (type)))
|| !comptypes (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm)),
Isn't this most likely intended to be TREE_VALUE (type) != error_mark_node?
@@ -9017,7 +9020,7 @@ store_parm_decls_oldstyle (tree fndecl, const struct c_arg_info *arg_info)
if (targetm.calls.promote_prototypes (TREE_TYPE (current_function_decl))
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (parm))
&& TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (parm))
- < TYPE_PRECISION (integer_type_node))
+ < TYPE_PRECISION (integer_type_node))
Should add the necessary parens while fixing formatting.
Bernd