https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #9)
> I'm not sure what a null BIND_EXPR_BLOCK actually means, or if it might be a
> bug elsewhere that such a thing is being created? The comments on BIND_EXPR
> in tree.def seem to imply that there is always an associated block. If it's
> permissible, maybe the fix ought to pass through the superblock pointer in
> the recursive call instead of the null block pointer.
My best guess is to ask Richard. If he doesn't know, he is likely
to know someone who will.
