Go ahead and apply the patch; it never hurts to make the code more robust.
Jason
On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 12:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 06/11/2013 06:27 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Here is a simple one. When processing CONST_DECLs after an error, we
>>> can ICE. This avoid the ICE.
>
>> No testcase?
>
> Yep; the patch is fine,
On 06/11/2013 12:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 06/11/2013 06:27 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Here is a simple one. When processing CONST_DECLs after an error, we
can ICE. This avoid the ICE.
No testcase?
Yep; the patch is fine, but needs a testcase.
Jason
On 06/11/2013 06:27 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Here is a simple one. When processing CONST_DECLs after an error, we can ICE.
This avoid the ICE.
No testcase?
Paolo.
Here is a simple one. When processing CONST_DECLs after an error, we can ICE.
This avoid the ICE.
Ok?
2013-06-11 Mike Stump
* init.c (constant_value_1): Protect CONST_DECLs better in the
face of errors.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.c b/gcc/cp/init.c
index 44e558e..133a162 10
