From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6567 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2017 14:34:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6548 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2017 14:34:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=door X-HELO: mail-yw0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f172.google.com) (209.85.161.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:34:42 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f172.google.com with SMTP id u70so31699471ywe.2 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C0h6quG9BdJf2nsq1ji4qpaU656KNPDt3tA7o/BTmPU=; b=J9IZDyHJmotPMuMveniU+wwmbACgX2cJO1Q4e6gB0vbBKHtaabbGxc8SXcq7sJK+u0 i88PUALkfdR4EZxqGKqBrm0y5q9bHpgoSXn/Rv9qWWEgcBvrFGhAXbVSrgR7dZbXkH7V aK1L5745oftYRw5MgmagWDBHqZPqM4IXrWK97Mh9D7q8Yw66jvYQHW8IipfSonI4DO/s W1R5e8nXHxnNzzXcHRAt24jYPS18fJ3yL5GOrxvAN9uAekOsstHkt/5yRw/a1smHEhYy +W+1Mq2ebcq4vpjwOcS2K/tU0vGrTI/sIa2y9fYxofRVi9165DxGbHmlB9ZldEwKLbTC wk6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5HY95rroEUnH9n+ogr0+gtNcrMnfINLDplH/SafqIoZMa4MoOR pIAYMTeKhyg9hPxB X-Received: by 10.129.84.68 with SMTP id i65mr9094036ywb.238.1493390082747; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:10d:c0a3:20fb:f6d0:5ac5:64cd:f102? ([2620:10d:c091:200::b:7639]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id l84sm2545448ywe.8.2017.04.28.07.34.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 71577 ("[6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (with extra struct initializer): in digest_init_r...") To: Paolo Carlini , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Jason Merrill References: <0e71a2d6-ae7b-36dd-a9e5-c50c207f8a35@oracle.com> From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0e71a2d6-ae7b-36dd-a9e5-c50c207f8a35@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg01501.txt.bz2 On 04/28/2017 06:58 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > now that 7.1.0 is almost out of the door, I'm sending a few simple > patches which I have been testing for a while in my trees. This one is > about an error recovery regression: I think it's correct to handle it by > simply returning unconditionally error_mark_node upon "too many > initializers" error. Tested x86_64-linux. PR c++/71577 * decl.c (reshape_init): Unconditionally return error_mark_node upon error about too many initializers. ok -- Nathan Sidwell