From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-483671-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8940 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2015 13:49:09 -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 8900 invoked by uid 48); 15 Apr 2015 13:49:05 -0000
From: "ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/65771] [5 Regression] ICE (in loc_list_from_tree, at dwarf2out.c:14964) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ktkachov 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:
Message-ID: <bug-65771-4-FwKoNdj537@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65771-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65771-4@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: 2015-04/txt/msg01223.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771

--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

> The switch statement in loc_list_from_tree
> doesn't handle DEBUG_EXPR_DECL which is why it ICEs.
> However, I'm not familiar with the code.
> Should it handle DEBUG_EXPR_DECL (just return 0)?

Adding a return 0 for the DEBUG_EXPR_DECL fixes the ICE in the testcase, but I
have no idea if it's the correct thing to do.