From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22576 invoked by alias); 31 May 2006 19:14:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21277 invoked by uid 48); 31 May 2006 19:13:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060531191326.21268.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "sabre at nondot dot org" 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/msg03227.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 19:13 ------- I guess I don't follow your logic here. I agree that the EDG approach is inferior to the current GCC implementation, but the current GCC approach is inferior to the old GCC implementation (thus it's a regression, if not a very important one). Why does EDG not doing well mean that GCC can't do well? -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26058