From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 4E24C393FC3A; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:50:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E24C393FC3A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1583808619;
 bh=5T5ueEErujaevIOLNfsZOsp4nJEpog0j3vUHZX7jdDo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=XEOBfQZpukamBthc7Nq3Oz8IxL6KKgS8p4+X5aksM/sRZ0vj0/VW96PIrOHZu6xFj
 Y5ZPd7CY6YxFC0KoUTGv4pfMsCZweMf0euD2tQ7MqOUEPjQt8t9UEnAhZThbi1n6eL
 5aFNycUWXXtXfYx+Y/uRfppiAw0XqPOTU0Iu1Uxc=
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/94098] [10 Regression] ICE: canonical types differ for
 identical types 'int(void*, void*)' and 'int(void*, void*)'
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:50:19 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-94098-4-EEcqWTIHCl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94098-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94098-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:50:19 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94098

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |msebor at gcc dot g=
nu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Despite fixing at least one bug it looks like the patch for PR92721 didn't
actually eliminate the underlying problem.  The comment above the internal
error suggests that changing the type attributes of a function when applying
attributes to its declaration might need additional changes to "the canonic=
al
type propagation code."  At this point I have no idea wherever that might n=
eed
to happen.

            /* The two types are structurally equivalent, but their
               canonical types were different. This is a failure of the
               canonical type propagation code.*/
            internal_error=20
              ("canonical types differ for identical types %qT and %qT",
               t1, t2);=