From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-27050-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5503 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2003 22:26:01 -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 5488 invoked by uid 71); 1 Jan 2003 22:26:01 -0000
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030101222601.5487.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: c++/5805: ...
Reply-To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/5805; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
To: jfranosc@ph.tum.de, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/5805: ...
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:21:06 -0500

 The new parser is in.  It produces an error for line 2, even with GNU 
 extensions on.
 
 So... should this bug be reversed, to indicate that a syntax error is 
 produced when it shouldn't be?  Or should documentation be changed to 
 indicate that this extension no longer exists?
 
 --Nathanael