[Bug c++/95192] [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree_list, have error_mark in handle_assume_aligned_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:2996

["marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> In cp/parser.c, we have code that avoids building attributes with
> error_mark_node values (instead just use error_mark_node as the attributes).
> 
> So, I wonder if we shouldn't do that in tsubst_attributes too, like:
> --- gcc/cp/pt.c.jj	2020-11-18 09:40:09.618663053 +0100
> +++ gcc/cp/pt.c	2020-11-18 15:47:26.584181671 +0100
> @@ -11502,6 +11502,8 @@ tsubst_attribute (tree t, tree *decl_p,
>        tree chain
>  	= tsubst_expr (TREE_CHAIN (val), args, complain, in_decl,
>  		       /*integral_constant_expression_p=*/false);
> +      if (chain == error_mark_node)
> +	return error_mark_node;
>        if (chain != TREE_CHAIN (val))
>  	val = tree_cons (NULL_TREE, TREE_VALUE (val), chain);
>      }
> @@ -11524,8 +11526,12 @@ tsubst_attribute (tree t, tree *decl_p,
>        return list;
>      }
>    else
> -    val = tsubst_expr (val, args, complain, in_decl,
> -		       /*integral_constant_expression_p=*/false);
> +    {
> +      val = tsubst_expr (val, args, complain, in_decl,
> +			 /*integral_constant_expression_p=*/false);
> +      if (val == error_mark_node)
> +	return val;
> +    }
>  
>    if (val != TREE_VALUE (t))
>      return build_tree_list (TREE_PURPOSE (t), val);
> 
> Except that we accept the testcase then rather than reject - the unification
> is done with complain == 0...

Are you planning Jakub to send the patch candidate to the mailing list?