* [Bug middle-end/17908] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-09 11:55 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 15:33 ` [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: aj at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-09 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-09 11:55 -------
Created an attachment (id=7314)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7314&action=view)
Preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 11:55 ` [Bug middle-end/17908] " aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-09 15:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 16:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-09 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-09 15:33 -------
I cannot reproduce this on powerpc-darwin but that does not mean it is not still a bug.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |[4.0 Regression] ICE: tree
|function_decl, have |check: expected
|continue_stmt in |function_decl, have
|c_expand_body, at /c- |continue_stmt in
|decl.c:6328 |c_expand_body, at /c-
| |decl.c:6328
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 11:55 ` [Bug middle-end/17908] " aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 15:33 ` [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-09 16:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 6:43 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-09 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-09 16:33 -------
I cannot rreproduce this with a cross to x86_64-linux-gnu from powerpc-darwin so this is either
wrong-code produced by the bootstrapping or a GC problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-09 16:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 6:43 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 8:19 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: aj at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-10 06:43 -------
I see the ICE only on i586 and x86_64. ia64 and ppc compile this file fine.
Do you want preprocessed i586 code?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 6:43 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 8:19 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 8:20 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: aj at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #7314|Preprocessed source file |Preprocessed source file
description| |(from x86-64)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 8:19 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 8:20 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-11 11:47 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: aj at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-10 08:20 -------
Created an attachment (id=7318)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7318&action=view)
Preprocessed source file - i386 compilation
On i586 I get the same ICE - here's the preprocessed source file. Hope this
helps.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 8:20 ` aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-11 11:47 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-11 13:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-12 12:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-11 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 11:47 -------
Here's a reduced testcase:
===========================
int foo()
{
unsigned char c;
switch ((int)c)
{
case -1:
case 0:
case 4:
case 5:
case 42:
return 0;
}
}
===========================
parse.i: In function 'foo':
parse.i:13: internal compiler error: tree check: expected function_decl, have
error_mark in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6334
Please submit a full bug report, [etc.]
If I replace the 42 with 39 for example, I get a segfault instead.
This might be related to PR 17657.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 11:47 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-11 13:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-12 12:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-11 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 13:45 -------
Note that I can reproduce it with a full bootstrap compiler but not with just stage 1 so something is
causing wrong code somewhere.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Keywords| |wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/17908] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328
2004-10-09 11:54 [Bug middle-end/17908] New: ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have continue_stmt in c_expand_body, at /c-decl.c:6328 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 13:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-12 12:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-12 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-12 12:56 -------
Fixed by the same patch which fixed PR 17657.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread