From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24430 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2004 02:54:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24340 invoked by uid 48); 2 Mar 2004 02:54:20 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040302025420.24336.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040301062119.14355.bangerth@dealii.org> References: <20040301062119.14355.bangerth@dealii.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14355] [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE in cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-02 02:54 ------- The obvious way to fix this, of course, is to go back, unapply the patch temporarily, observe that we get the ICE back, fix it, then reapply your patch to PR 14377. Whether that makes sense is another matter. If the fix for 14377 patched the only place where invalid data could be fed to cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, then it doesn't make much sense to fix the ICE here. If some other place could leak similarly wrong data down, then one should fix it. I personally have not much of an opinion. It's not terribly important, so waiting whether someone else can come up with a testcase using the compiler with the fix for 14377 is also an option. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14355