From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-20075-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9016 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2002 20:36:12 -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 8987 invoked by uid 71); 2 Jul 2002 20:36:08 -0000
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020702203608.8985.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it>
Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo<n>::bar = foo<n-1>::bar + foo<n-2>::bar evaluates
 to zero at compile time
Reply-To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it>
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/7181; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,  gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,  dobrynin@bigfoot.com, 
 gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, Nathan Sidwell
 <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo<n>::bar = foo<n-1>::bar + foo<n-2>::bar evaluates
 to zero at compile time
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:28:13 +0200

 Hi,
 
 from a very practical point of view, would be difficult to restore the 
 behaviour of 2.95.x? Note that Intel and Comeau adopts that "particular" 
 initialization order and the current "equivalent" one ;-) breaks a whole 
 body of literature on template metaprogramming...
 
 Ciao, Paolo.
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7181