From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-481786-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18098 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2015 11:05:16 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 18040 invoked by uid 48); 26 Mar 2015 11:05:12 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/65556] [5 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (type precision mismatch in switch statement)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status component assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-65556-4-I2Xu79ViDk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65556-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65556-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg02930.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65556

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
          Component|middle-end                  |c++
           Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org         |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So we have

D.2334 = a.id;
D.2335 = (int) D.2334;
switch (D.2335) <default: <D.2336>, case 0: <D.2331>>

and

 <case_label_expr 0x7ffff68d80e0
    type <void_type 0x7ffff68f2000 void VOID
        align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff68f2000
        pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff68f2150>>
    side-effects tree_1
    arg 0 <integer_cst 0x7ffff6a46d80 type <integer_type 0x7ffff68d07e0 long
int> constant 0>
    arg 2 <label_decl 0x7ffff6a4a100 D.2331 type <void_type 0x7ffff68f2000
void>
        ignored VOID file t.c line 9 col 1
        align 1 context <function_decl 0x7ffff6a4d000 main>>
    t.c:9:1>

which has a 'long int' value.  The original C++ code already looks bogus:

switch ((int) a.id)
  {
    case 0:;
  }

so there seems to be a disconnect in the C++ frontend for how the switch
variable and the cases promote.