https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69824
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've been playing with that for a while. If the continue is replaced with
gcc_unreachable, we find parm-impl-decl-[13].c testcases that trigger it. I
think your patch is probably fine, but I'm not 100% sure about the following:
int
h2 (int (*p)[sizeof(j())])
{
return j();
}
int j () { return 2; }
Should we be getting one implicit declaration warning with -Wall, or two (i.e.,
should j go out of scope at the end of the arg list)? We get only one.
An alternative patch that does not even put FUNCTION_DECLs in the list would be
Index: c-decl.c
===================================================================
--- c-decl.c (revision 233451)
+++ c-decl.c (working copy)
@@ -7050,25 +7050,28 @@ get_parm_info (bool ellipsis, tree expr)
vec_safe_push (tags, tag);
break;
+ case FUNCTION_DECL:
+ /* FUNCTION_DECLs appear when there is an implicit function
+ declaration in the parameter list. */
+ gcc_assert (b->nested);
+ goto set_shadowed;
+
case CONST_DECL:
case TYPE_DECL:
- case FUNCTION_DECL:
/* CONST_DECLs appear here when we have an embedded enum,
and TYPE_DECLs appear here when we have an embedded struct
or union. No warnings for this - we already warned about the
- type itself. FUNCTION_DECLs appear when there is an implicit
- function declaration in the parameter list. */
+ type itself. */
/* When we reinsert this decl in the function body, we need
to reconstruct whether it was marked as nested. */
- gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL
- ? b->nested
- : !b->nested);
+ gcc_assert (!b->nested);
DECL_CHAIN (decl) = others;
others = decl;
/* fall through */
case ERROR_MARK:
+ set_shadowed:
/* error_mark_node appears here when we have an undeclared
variable. Just throw it away. */
if (b->id)
