From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26623 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2003 17:26:00 -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 26584 invoked by uid 71); 27 Feb 2003 17:26:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030227172600.26583.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Michael Matz Subject: Re: c++/9868: [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in c_expand_expr when qualifying member variable Reply-To: Michael Matz X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01428.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9868; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Michael Matz To: Wolfgang Bangerth Cc: , , Subject: Re: c++/9868: [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE in c_expand_expr when qualifying member variable Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:18:22 +0100 (CET) Hi, On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > Ahh, yes. I forgot. It would be interesting to know in which way our > > compilers differ, that even the frontend behaves differently. Hmm. > > Valid question. I am building straight from CVS, on a SuSE 8 box. Are you > using additional SuSE patches? No. I tested multiple compilers. clean HEAD, clean 3.3, and clean hammer-3_3-branch (Ok, the last with one patch to the backend, but it can't matter). > At any rate, 9868 seems to be a superset of the problem in 9524, so should > 9868 be fixed, this would likely cure 9524 as well, and for both of us. I would hope so too, yes. Ciao, Michael.