From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3305 invoked by alias); 3 May 2006 14:51:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3277 invoked by alias); 3 May 2006 14:51:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060503145139.3276.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/27309] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on invalid constructor definition In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-05-03 14:51 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on invalid constructor definition reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-03 10:38 ------- > Mark, do you want to add some of the testcases from PR27379 and PR27380 > to the testsuite as their mode of failure is a little bit different > although the underlying problem seems to be the same? There's certainly no harm in that, but I don't think we'll increase coverage in any interesting way; the underlying cause really was the same for all of those failures. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27309