From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10852 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2005 23:01:32 -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 10557 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2005 23:01:21 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050404230121.10555.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041230105911.19199.lars@trolltech.com> References: <20041230105911.19199.lars@trolltech.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19199] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a reference to a temporary X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04 23:01 ------- Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold Alexandre Oliva wrote: > If you find that reviewing patch proposals is wasting your time, I'm > sorry. Of course, untested patches should be clearly marked as such, which yours always are. Given that, I don't feel like you're wasting my time with such a posting; if I see something obviously disconcerting I can comment. However, I do find that I'm less interested in reviewing such patches. So, from my point of view, I'd prefer that you post most patches after a full test cycle. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19199