From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31511 invoked by alias); 31 May 2005 17:46:09 -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 31215 invoked by alias); 31 May 2005 17:46:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050531174604.31214.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" 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/msg04067.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31 17:46 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] 23_containers/bitset/operations/2.cc execution test fails On Tue, 31 May 2005, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote: > 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 ;) Indeed, I leave it to the bugmasters to decide if there's a component which is a better approximation, or that the bug is the same as another one not mentioning the testcase in question, or is an issue fixed without mentioning the testcase. Where the bug doesn't happen on i686-linux I may in due course run a binary search to identify the responsible patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21842