https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70425
Bug ID: 70425
Summary: decl_expr contains too little information
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: JamesMikeDuPont at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
using gcc (Debian 4.9.2-10) 4.9.2
In the 001t.tu file, the decl_expr contains no real information.
here is the context of relevant statements :
@9529 function_decl name: @9547 type: @5191 scpe: @155
srcp: eval.c:199 chain: @9548
link: static body: @9549
@9549 bind_expr type: @129 vars: @9568 body: @9569
@9569 statement_list 0 : @9587 1 : @9588 2 : @9589
3 : @9590 4 : @9591 5 : @9592
6 : @9593
@9585 identifier_node strg: pwd lngt: 3
@9568 var_decl name: @9585 type: @144 scpe: @9529
srcp: eval.c:201 chain: @9586
size: @22 algn: 64 used: 1
@9587 decl_expr type: @129
@9588 decl_expr type: @129
@9589 modify_expr type: @144 op 0: @9586 op 1: @9615
@129 void_type name: @126 algn: 8
@126 type_decl name: @128 type: @129 chain: @130
@128 identifier_node strg: void lngt: 4
The source code around 199 is :
198 static void
199 send_pwd_to_eterm ()
200 {
201 char *pwd, *f;
202
203 f = 0;
204 pwd = get_string_value ("PWD");
205 if (pwd == 0)
206 f = pwd = get_working_directory ("eterm");
207 fprintf (stderr, "\032/%s\n", pwd);
208 free (f);
209 }
So can I infer that @9587 refers to line 201 for the pwd variable?
See https://archive.org/details/bash.compilation for a full snapshot of the
compile. build/eval.c.001t.tu is the file.
So please tell me if this is correct or are we missing important fields in the
decl_expr.
