From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 525CC3858D35; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:45:47 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 525CC3858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1594165547; bh=bXPfe+MkoprvS8jU2T3qxcL4J8n78ix9ZIdNRIOIK6Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xgDnooMFEWKk4+m86xPB/6MXG+4mOG7DpBDTVYxPg6iqLruKPUPh9oRDlexRxOKX6 sBJCqr/eDNjTjWUqoZSu81+M9pHZ9kdnsOi565hP0wLuQSYXj/UuwQtcbDMIN9VMlS KAtpblbJ0l46SyCY+BxQ1E89HcxHKbkWpj6zJ/m0= From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/95935] ICE : Segmentation fault crash_signal from toplev.c:328 Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 23:45:47 +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: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed keywords cc bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 23:45:47 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95935 Marek Polacek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|error-recovery |accepts-invalid CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2020-07-07 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed, but here's an improved test: enum class E; template struct X { };=20 template<> enum class E { }; ICEs without giving any previous errors, and=20 template struct X { }; is accepts-invalid.=