On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 08:53 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > This patch initializes input_location at the same spot where the line > table is initialized. Without this, it's possible to crash when > emitting a diagnostic in a reinvocation of the compiler, because > input_location refers to a location that is no longer valid. > --- > gcc/ChangeLog.jit | 4 ++++ > gcc/toplev.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog.jit b/gcc/ChangeLog.jit > index ee1df88..a9b0817 100644 > --- a/gcc/ChangeLog.jit > +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog.jit > @@ -1,5 +1,9 @@ > 2014-03-19 Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com> > > + * toplev.c (general_init): Initialize input_location. > + > +2014-03-19 Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com> > + > * timevar.h (auto_timevar): New class. > > 2014-03-19 Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com> > diff --git a/gcc/toplev.c b/gcc/toplev.c > index b257ab2..1febc2e 100644 > --- a/gcc/toplev.c > +++ b/gcc/toplev.c > @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ general_init (const char *argv0) > table. */ > init_ggc (); > init_stringpool (); > + input_location = 0; > line_table = ggc_alloc_line_maps (); > linemap_init (line_table); > line_table->reallocator = realloc_for_line_map;
Given this declaration in input.c: location_t input_location; then assigning 0 is a faithful way of resetting it to its initial state. That said, "0" feels like a magic number. Would it better to assign UNKNOWN_LOCATION to it? which is 0, c.f. input.h: #define UNKNOWN_LOCATION ((source_location) 0) If so, perhaps the declaration in input.c should gain an initializer to the same value? (shouldn't affect the code, since it's 0 either way, but perhaps it's more readable?) Dave
