From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8386 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2007 01:31:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 8296 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jan 2007 01:31:11 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070124013111.8295.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/29018] empty enum accepted In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg02030.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:31 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I think we want to fix the test cases, but I don't want to sign up to fix them > myself. > "I think" is not enough. It would be nice to be able tell to whoever takes the burden of implementing this that fixing the testcases is OK and that such patch will be approved (and give any hints about the better way to fix the testcases). Since this affects testcases for g++ and libstdc++, this may require approval from more than one maintainer. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29018