This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch, obvious] PR 84705 ("[6/7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in add_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:390")
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:46:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: [C++ Patch, obvious] PR 84705 ("[6/7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in add_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:390")
- References: <ab3f4496-f677-0262-2494-1fa86a033beb@oracle.com> <CADzB+2=QawaQJFZ7SWXYspnh_ZtVK=3M_RG6R6L6YTPCoH234Q@mail.gmail.com> <b15ecebf-d195-cec8-4281-e9e3400ef515@oracle.com>
OK.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:16 PM Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 16/10/18 22:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:39 PM Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> the main issue is already fixed in trunk - we don't ICE anymore - but I
> >> noticed that for ill-formed code like:
> >>
> >> int i = static_cast<struct d>(i);
> >>
> >> we emit a duplicate diagnostic about the incomplete type d, easy to
> >> avoid by returning error_mark_node from
> >> perform_direct_initialization_if_possible when build_special_member_call
> >> returns it. I think this latter tweak qualifies as obvious, per a
> >> comment made by Jason a while ago...
> > Yes, but in this case it might be better to handle it in
> > build_cplus_new, to also cover other uses of that function.
>
> Ok... Then, I'm finishing testing the below. Thanks!
>
> Paolo.
>
> ////////////////
>