From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-399347-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24495 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2012 11:57:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 24486 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2012 11:57:11 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:56:51 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/54355] ICE on invalid code in switch statement
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Attachment #28068 is obsolete
Message-ID: <bug-54355-4-2mHJyvodFa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54355-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54355-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg01619.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54355

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #28068|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-23 11:56:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 28073
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28073
gcc48-pr54355.patch

Actually, it seems the comments added in PR29062 disagree with what is actually
passed, two arguments are swapped.  Dunno about the best empty_ok value in that
case, but certainly nested should be true, we are definitely inside of a
function already.