From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-19105-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30274 invoked by alias); 28 May 2002 02:36:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30250 invoked by uid 71); 28 May 2002 02:36:01 -0000
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 20:55:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020528023601.30247.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Oliver Schoenborn <oliver.schoenborn@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: c++/6523: bug with pointers to template functions
Reply-To: Oliver Schoenborn <oliver.schoenborn@utoronto.ca>
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00888.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/6523; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Oliver Schoenborn <oliver.schoenborn@utoronto.ca>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
 	reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
 	nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/6523: bug with pointers to template functions
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:34:50 -0400

 > From: Reichelt <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
 > To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, oliver.schoenborn@utoronto.ca, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
 >         nobody@gcc.gnu.org
 > Subject: Re: c++/6523: bug with pointers to template functions
 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:49:49 +0200
 > 
 >  Hi,
 > 
 >  the example can be reduced to the one in PR 4249.
 >  Therefore, the PR can probably be closed.
 > 
 >  Greetings,
 >  Volker Reichelt
 > 
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6523
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=4249
 
 It's not clear to me that 6523 can be reduced to 4249, unless someone
 knows what *causes* the bug. Indeed, my example Foo1 class (see bug
 report 6523 abnove) is similar to 4249 example, IT actually compiles
 fine, it is the *Foo2* class example that causes compiler to crash on
 the g++ source file. That one does NOT reduce to 4249 (AFAICT). So it
 may well be a different bug. I would rather not close 6523 but just add
 a note in 4249 that the bugs may be related, unless someone knows for
 sure that they are the same (rather than just appear related).
 
 Oliver