From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 976 invoked by alias); 31 May 2005 17:14:50 -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 32433 invoked by uid 48); 31 May 2005 17:14:39 -0000 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050531171439.32429.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050531163448.21842.jsm28@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050531163448.21842.jsm28@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/21842] [4.1 Regression] 23_containers/bitset/operations/2.cc execution test fails X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg04053.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-31 17:14 ------- > Testing manually it seems to fail with -O2 or -O but not -O0. Ah, ah, the same happens for the other regression that you just filed, it seems! Thanks. > In general when reporting bugs shown up by my regression tester I don't > know what part of the compiler they are in; I check enough to make sure > they don't appear to be system problems and aren't already reported with > reference to the named testcase or discussed on the lists as fixed, but > not to determine the exact cause. Ok, this is by itself absolutely useful, of course. Only, categorizing as libstdc++-v3 can be "distracting", you know what I mean? Luckily, we have our trusty "bug masters" to take care of that ;) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21842