From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14912 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 23:34:00 -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 14883 invoked by uid 61); 10 Sep 2002 23:33:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020910233359.14882.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: act.kronoz@activenetwork.it, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ptrebuc@sophia.inria.fr From: gdr@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: gdr@gcc.gnu.org, act.kronoz@activenetwork.it, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ptrebuc@sophia.inria.fr, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/6326: gcc compile illegal code X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: gcc compile illegal code State-Changed-From-To: closed->open State-Changed-By: gdr State-Changed-When: Tue Sep 10 16:33:59 2002 State-Changed-Why: Closed by mistake. Andrew Pinski's analysis is not applicable since the part he is reading concerns function declaration that is not a definition and we're precisely in a case where that is irrelevant. Furthermore, Neil's analysis alos isn't applicable. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6326