Re: ICE in change_address at emit_rtl.c

[mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>]

> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:41:55 -0800
> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
> To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>

> 2. As few spurious errors reported to the user as possible.  This is
> one place where ERROR_MARK_NODE really falls down.  Consider these
> ill-formed declarations:

> double int number;
> typedef struct foo foo_t[;

> These will both provoke error cascades in the current compiler,

?

double int number;

int maif() {
   number = 1;
   number1 = 1;
}

seems to do the right thing?

> mainly because 'number' and 'foo_t' don't get entered into the
> symbol table, so we issue errors every time they are used, even if
> the use would have been valid given a valid declaration.

> For instance,

> inline int foo(void) { syntax error; }

> should become "extern int foo(void);" for purpose of further processing.

It already does:

double int number;

void maif() {
   number = 1;
   number1 = 1;
}

void sdf() {
  syntax error
}

void mae() {
  int a = sdf();
}

terr.c:1: two or more data types in declaration of `number'
terr.c: In function `maif':
terr.c:5: `number1' undeclared (first use in this function)
terr.c:5: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
terr.c:5: for each function it appears in.)
terr.c: In function `sdf':
terr.c:9: `syntax' undeclared (first use in this function)
terr.c:9: parse error before "error"
terr.c: In function `mae':
terr.c:13: void value not ignored as it ought to be

Did I construct a testcase that was too simple?