From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-41559-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20015 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2001 05:15:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19808 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2001 05:13:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.wrs.com) (147.11.1.11)
  by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2001 05:13:45 -0000
Received: from kankakee.wrs.com (kankakee [147.11.37.13])
	by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA27780;
	Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:12:32 -0800 (PST)
From: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
Received: (from mrs@localhost)
	by kankakee.wrs.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.0) id VAA01411;
	Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:13:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:15:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200111250513.VAA01411@kankakee.wrs.com>
To: gdr@codesourcery.com, zack@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: ICE in change_address at emit_rtl.c
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com, neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00678.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:41:55 -0800
> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
> To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>

> 2. As few spurious errors reported to the user as possible.  This is
> one place where ERROR_MARK_NODE really falls down.  Consider these
> ill-formed declarations:

> double int number;
> typedef struct foo foo_t[;

> These will both provoke error cascades in the current compiler,

?

double int number;

int maif() {
   number = 1;
   number1 = 1;
}

seems to do the right thing?

> mainly because 'number' and 'foo_t' don't get entered into the
> symbol table, so we issue errors every time they are used, even if
> the use would have been valid given a valid declaration.

> For instance,

> inline int foo(void) { syntax error; }

> should become "extern int foo(void);" for purpose of further processing.

It already does:

double int number;

void maif() {
   number = 1;
   number1 = 1;
}

void sdf() {
  syntax error
}

void mae() {
  int a = sdf();
}

terr.c:1: two or more data types in declaration of `number'
terr.c: In function `maif':
terr.c:5: `number1' undeclared (first use in this function)
terr.c:5: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
terr.c:5: for each function it appears in.)
terr.c: In function `sdf':
terr.c:9: `syntax' undeclared (first use in this function)
terr.c:9: parse error before "error"
terr.c: In function `mae':
terr.c:13: void value not ignored as it ought to be

Did I construct a testcase that was too simple?