From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3242 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 22:16:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3189 invoked by uid 71); 8 Feb 2002 22:16:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020208221605.3181.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: target/3947: [MIPS] MIPS multiple inheritance - thunk causes two destructor calls Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/3947; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tim Small Cc: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, simong@oz.agile.tv Subject: Re: target/3947: [MIPS] MIPS multiple inheritance - thunk causes two destructor calls Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:13:51 -0500 On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:51:15AM +0000, Tim Small wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3947 > > This bug should prob be reclassified as non-architecture dependent, as > we are seeing this bug (or at least one with the same effect) on i386. > Is it worth us trying to whittle down to the smallest code snippet > necessary to reproduce this (we are working with a fairly large closed > source base so this may be quite time consuming - no problem doing it, > but wanted to check if it is actually going to be useful?). A patch for what I believe was the same problem was posted to gcc-patches and received no comment. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-02/msg00573.html -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer