[Bug c/100505] New: ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[Bug c/100505] New: ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100505

            Bug ID: 100505
           Summary: ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213
           Product: gcc
           Version: tree-ssa
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca
  Target Milestone: ---

$ gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.FRQzt2wMfl-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-checking-yes --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210510 (experimental) [master revision
:fb3a8fb4a:25f9f35a85ffee808fc1482b14d91176df59751b] (GCC)

$ cat mutant.c
__GIMPLE
foo() {
bb1:
bb1:
bb1:;
}

$ gcc-trunk  mutant.c
mutant.c:1:1: error: ‘__GIMPLE’ only valid with ‘-fgimple’
    1 | __GIMPLE
      | ^~~~~~~~
mutant.c:2:1: warning: return type defaults to ‘int’ [-Wimplicit-int]
    2 | foo() {
      | ^~~
mutant.c: In function ‘foo’:
mutant.c:4:1: error: duplicate label ‘bb1’
    4 | bb1:
      | ^~~
mutant.c:3:1: note: previous definition of ‘bb1’ with type ‘void’
    3 | bb1:
      | ^~~
mutant.c:5:1: error: duplicate label ‘bb1’
    5 | bb1:;
      | ^~~
mutant.c:3:1: note: previous definition of ‘bb1’ with type ‘void’
    3 | bb1:
      | ^~~
during GIMPLE pass: eh
mutant.c:2:1: internal compiler error: in record_in_finally_tree, at
tree-eh.c:213
    2 | foo() {
      | ^~~
0xf5fe56 record_in_finally_tree
        /tmp/tmp.FRQzt2wMfl-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/tree-eh.c:213
0xf5fe56 record_in_finally_tree
        /tmp/tmp.FRQzt2wMfl-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/tree-eh.c:203
0xf64d79 collect_finally_tree_1
        /tmp/tmp.FRQzt2wMfl-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/tree-eh.c:229
0xf64d79 execute
        /tmp/tmp.FRQzt2wMfl-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/tree-eh.c:2197
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.

[Bug c/100505] ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100505

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
__GIMPLE and __RTL expects correct input and handles just limited diagnostics.
I think especially error-recovery for these are WONTFIX.

[Bug c/100505] ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100505

--- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun <cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca> ---
Should I avoid reporting test programs with __GIMPLE or __RTL?

[Bug c/100505] ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100505

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #2)
> Should I avoid reporting test programs with __GIMPLE or __RTL?

I think so, at least if you're just mass-generating them somehow.  I think
it's OK to report ICEs without prior reported errors - those we'd
eventually want to fix.  So for __GIMPLE at least make sure to pass -fgimple
to get rid of the first reported error.

[Bug c/100505] ICE: in record_in_finally_tree, at tree-eh.c:213

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100505

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Dup of bug 100625. Even though PR 100625 is newer, it records which revision
fixed this bug too.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 100625 ***