From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29123 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 15:19:13 -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 29091 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 15:19:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040318151912.29089.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040312062911.14545.schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> References: <20040312062911.14545.schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14545] [3.4/3.5 Regression] Cannot compile pooma-gcc (regression) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg02205.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-18 15:19 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] Cannot compile pooma-gcc (regression) bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-18 15:08 ------- >Oh, hell. I was just posting this as an amusement for everyone, because >it is so _really_ short. How can we _not_ get this right? > >This whole business with non-dependent initializers has run somehow >out of control given how late we are in the release cycle. We must have >had at least a dozen different reports about this problem. Has anyone >considered reverting the patch that introduced this instability? We seem >to be stomping out fires that keep popping up everywhere... > > Yes, I've been considering reverting that patch. However, some of the problems we've found would have arisen in other contexts as well; that's just where they happened so show up. Falsely assuming that something is an integral constant-expression (which has been the source of several of the bugs) could result in many other problems as well. I hope to look at this some more today. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14545