From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-433521-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17248 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 06:43:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16625 invoked by uid 48); 5 Nov 2013 06:41:10 -0000
From: "PHHargrove at lbl dot gov" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/43027] #pragma rejected inside enum defn
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 06:43:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.4.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-43027-4-sPiI63FEPa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-43027-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-43027-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43027

--- Comment #4 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> ---
For what it's worth, the sample input is fine with
   gcc-3.2.2
   gcc-3.3.3
   gcc-3.4.0
   gcc-4.0.0
   gcc-4.1.0
   gcc-4.2.1
   gcc-4.3.2
and broken with
   gcc-4.4.2 (the original report)
   gcc-4.5.1
   gcc-4.6.1
   gcc-4.7.0
   gcc-4.8.0
and still broken with
   gcc-4.9.0 20131031

I am resisting the urge to prepend "[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]" to
the bug Summary.


I'd be content with resolution as INVALID (same rationale as in PR 37267), but
sitting UNCONFIRMED for 3.5 years is getting old.