Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests

Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests

[Jason Merrill]

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/8306; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, janis187@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in
 C++ compatibility tests
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:28:42 -0500

 On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:09 +0000, <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
 
 > Correction, the "minimal example" no-longer fails, but the full testsuite
 > entry does still fail.
 
 Does that still represent a regression?  Mark said that previous compilers
 would have just rejected such code.
 
 Jason

Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests

[Richard Earnshaw]

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/8306; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
        janis187@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C 
 in C++ compatibility tests
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:22 +0000

 > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:09 +0000, <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
 > 
 > > Correction, the "minimal example" no-longer fails, but the full testsuite
 > > entry does still fail.
 > 
 > Does that still represent a regression?  Mark said that previous compilers
 > would have just rejected such code.
 > 
 > Jason
 
 Probably not.  The 2.95.3 compiler I have gives:
 
 /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7.h:3: 
 sorry, not implemented: bit-fields larger than 64 bits
 In file included from /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat
 /break/bitfield7_y.C:3:
 /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7.h:2: 
   in declaration of `U::i'
 
 I don't have 3.0 or 3.1 built to test against.
 
 R.
 

Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests

[rearnsha]

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/8306; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, janis187@us.ibm.com
Cc:  
Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in
 C++ compatibility tests
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:09 +0000

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8306
 Correction, the "minimal example" no-longer fails, but the full 
 testsuite entry does still fail.
 
 R.
 

Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests

[rearnsha]

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/8306; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, janis187@us.ibm.com
Cc:  
Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in
 C++ compatibility tests
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:09:10 +0000

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8306
 
 I've just tried this again on the ARM with the latest 3.4 compiler and 
 it works without any problems.