From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28489 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2003 12:56:01 -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 28420 invoked by uid 71); 15 Mar 2003 12:56:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030315125601.28359.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Richard Earnshaw Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests Reply-To: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00974.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/8306; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Richard Earnshaw To: Jason Merrill 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, 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.