Re: c++/8564: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in find_function_data, at function.c:329

Re: c++/8564: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in find_function_data, at function.c:329

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8564; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <jason@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8564: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in find_function_data,
 at function.c:329
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:10:46 -0600 (CST)

 > Can this PR be closed?  Its "sibling" PR 7473 has already been closed
 > and it seems this bug was fixed some time ago, too.
 
 I can confirm that it is fixed on 3.3 and mainline, but it is not fixed on 
 3.2 branch. I'd be happy to close it, but we need agreement that it will 
 not be fixed on 3.2 any more (where it is a regression as well). I have 
 adapted the synposis in the meantime, to reflect this.
 
 Jason, you wrote the fix. Is there any chance of rolling it over to the 
 branch, or is this too invasive?
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: c++/8564: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in find_function_data, at function.c:329

[Steven Bosscher]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8564; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
	gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: c++/8564: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in find_function_data,
	at function.c:329
Date: 19 Feb 2003 13:13:10 +0100

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8564
 
 Can this PR be closed?  Its "sibling" PR 7473 has already been closed
 and it seems this bug was fixed some time ago, too.
 
 The ChangeLog entry for the fix is in cp/ChangeLog, so maybe it was not
 recognised by the "cvs commit" machinery??
 
 Greetz
 Steven