[Bug c++/84662] [6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type, at cp/typeck.c:1944
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84662 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Mar 2 17:07:39 2018 New Revision: 258146 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258146&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/84662 * pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build) : Use RETURN instead of return. : Likewise. : If op0 is error_mark_node, just return it instead of wrapping it into CONVERT_EXPR. * g++.dg/cpp1y/pr84662.C: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr84662.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/84662] [6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type, at cp/typeck.c:1944
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84662 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43544 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43544&action=edit gcc8-pr84662.patch Untested fix.
[Bug c++/84662] [6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type, at cp/typeck.c:1944
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84662 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2018-03-02 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |6.5 Summary|internal compiler error:|[6/7/8 Regression] internal |tree check: expected class |compiler error: tree check: |'type', have 'exceptional' |expected class 'type', have |(error_mark) in |'exceptional' (error_mark) |is_bitfield_expr_with_lower |in |ed_type, at |is_bitfield_expr_with_lower |cp/typeck.c:1944|ed_type, at ||cp/typeck.c:1944 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Actually this one seems to be fixed. I can still reproduce with latest trunk.