From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31204 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2011 05:04:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 31186 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2011 05:04:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:04:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9R54Ues005908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:31 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9R4B6SY010274; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:11:07 -0400 Received: from [0.0.0.0] (ovpn-113-169.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.169]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9R4B5pA012873; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:11:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4EA8D9D8.3050307@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:38:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Carlini CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 50870 References: <4EA81BB4.8090900@oracle.com> <4EA826EA.4040900@redhat.com> <4EA82C27.3020700@oracle.com> <4EA8350D.8060907@redhat.com> <4EA8879F.40906@oracle.com> <4EA88E3A.4010808@redhat.com> <4EA88F7B.3060706@oracle.com> <4EA89101.6050001@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA89101.6050001@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg02438.txt.bz2 On 10/26/2011 07:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > .. maybe my message wasn't clear, sorry, I'm a bit tired (here it's > late): I meant to say that the non_reference tweak fixes the > non-template impl class case, but something more is needed for a > template impl (thus the new testcase). And, additionally, this issue is > a [4.6/4.7 Regression], thus, post 4.6.2, we may be interested in back > porting something. Ah. > Let me know if you need additional details, or what else. How is the template case failing? > Or we want me to look into a different way to attack the template case. Please. Jason