In gcc/: 2011-01-26 Nicola Pero <nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com>

In gcc/:
2011-01-26  Nicola Pero  <nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com>

	PR c/43082
	* c-typeck.c (c_objc_common_truthvalue_conversion): If we are
	passed a VOID_TYPE expression, immediately emit an error and
	return error_mark_node.

In gcc/testsuite/:
2011-01-26  Nicola Pero  <nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com>
	    Andrew Pinski  <pinskia@gmail.com>

	PR c/43082
	* gcc.dg/pr43082.c: New.

Co-Authored-By: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>

From-SVN: r169319

gcc/ChangeLog

+2011-01-26  Nicola Pero  <nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com>
+
+	PR c/43082
+	* c-typeck.c (c_objc_common_truthvalue_conversion): If we are
+	passed a VOID_TYPE expression, immediately emit an error and
+	return error_mark_node.
+
 2011-01-26  Jeff Law  <law@redhat.com>
 
 	PR rtl-optimization/47464

gcc/c-typeck.c

@@ -10270,6 +10270,10 @@ c_objc_common_truthvalue_conversion (location_t location, tree expr)
       error_at (location, "used union type value where scalar is required");
       return error_mark_node;
 
+    case VOID_TYPE:
+      error_at (location, "void value not ignored as it ought to be");
+      return error_mark_node;
+
     case FUNCTION_TYPE:
       gcc_unreachable ();
 
@@ -10282,8 +10286,8 @@ c_objc_common_truthvalue_conversion (location_t location, tree expr)
   if (int_operands)
     expr = remove_c_maybe_const_expr (expr);
 
-  /* ??? Should we also give an error for void and vectors rather than
-     leaving those to give errors later?  */
+  /* ??? Should we also give an error for vectors rather than leaving
+     those to give errors later?  */
   expr = c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location, expr);
 
   if (TREE_CODE (expr) == INTEGER_CST && int_operands && !int_const)

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

+2011-01-26  Nicola Pero  <nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com>
+	    Andrew Pinski  <pinskia@gmail.com>
+
+	PR c/43082
+	* gcc.dg/pr43082.c: New.
+
 2011-01-26  DJ Delorie  <dj@redhat.com>
 
 	PR rtl-optimization/46878

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43082.c

+/* Test that the compiler does not crash when void expressions are
+   found inside conditional expressions.  PR c/43082.  */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+void
+foo (int x)
+{
+  if (x ? (void)(0) : (void)(1)) /* { dg-error "void value not ignored as it ought to be" } */
+    ;
+}