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 E1A7A393D03E; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:29:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E1A7A393D03E
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/98463] [11 Regression] internal compiler error: in
 output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5491 by r11-2720
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:29:52 +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: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98463-4-hVCMfrOkTf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98463-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98463-4@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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:29:53 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98463

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With the patch for C++14 and older the problem is that the empty base has no
FIELD_DECL in the RECORD_TYPE at all, so it then doesn't find anything.
So for the empty_base && lval case it might be better to return some tree t=
hat
would make it clear to the caller that the code is valid but that it should=
n't
really store anything into it.
But still, for C++17 and onwards, we shouldn't be setting empty_base for the
lval case if we can find the FIELD_DECL for it (so perhaps for lval move the
is_empty_class check to the end) and otherwise figure out what to return.
A freshly created VAR_DECL, or one that is cached (same VAR_DECL for the sa=
me
type), something else?=