gimplify_parameters

[Richard Kenner]

    Yes, but I can't see why you think this is a Real Bug rather than
    a possible inefficiency.

Because the call to gimplify_type_sizes will leave junk around that
the next one will pick up, improperly.  See my message that went by while
you were writing this.

    I do see an ICE here, due to SRA exposing a new variable in the nested
    function that hadn't been seen previously, and thus tree-nested.c wasn't
    given a chance to mutate it properly.  Which *is* a bug.

What an interesting test case!  It was written to show one bug. So far
it hasn't shown that one, but found two others ...