On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 1:02 PM Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 12:49:07PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > After r16-6808-g4b0e94b394fa38, added was a loop around
> > attributes looking for an annotation attribute but
> > does not take into account the attribute might be
> > an error mark, so there is an ICE when trying to access
> > the get_attribute_name. This fixes the issue by breaking
> > out of the loop if the attribute is an error.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> >
> > PR c++/124307
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * parser.cc (cp_parser_base_specifier): Break from the loop
> > if an attribute is an error mark.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas24.C: New test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <[email protected]>
>
> Using error_operand_p on something that isn't expression and doesn't
> have (meaningful) TREE_TYPE is a weird.
>
> Furthermore, I think error_mark_node can't appear as TREE_CHAIN of
> something else in the list (see e.g. attr_chainon), so it is solely
> whether std_attrs is error_mark_node or not.
>
> So I think it would be easier to change
> if (std_attrs != NULL_TREE)
> to
> if (std_attrs != NULL_TREE && std_attrs != error_mark_node)
Yes that is a much better idea and yes it fixes the testcase. Will
submit a new version later today.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> > --- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
> > @@ -31835,6 +31835,8 @@ cp_parser_base_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
> > tree *pannotations = &annotations;
> > for (tree attr = std_attrs; attr; attr = TREE_CHAIN (attr))
> > {
> > + if (error_operand_p (attr))
> > + break;
> > if (annotation_p (attr))
> > {
> > *pannotations = attr;
>
> Jakub
>
