From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32423 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2003 09:26:27 -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 32396 invoked by uid 48); 27 Mar 2003 09:26:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030327092627.32394.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: aj@suse.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pthomas@suse.de, rth@gcc.gnu.org From: rth@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rth@gcc.gnu.org, aj@suse.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pthomas@suse.de, rth@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/10225: [3.3/3.4 regression] Unnamed structs aren't handled correctly X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01879.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression] Unnamed structs aren't handled correctly Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->rth Responsible-Changed-By: rth Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Mar 27 09:26:26 2003 Responsible-Changed-Why: . State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed State-Changed-By: rth State-Changed-When: Thu Mar 27 09:26:26 2003 State-Changed-Why: It was a bug that 3.2 accepted this. For 3.3 and beyond this is accepted with the -fms-extensions switch, but not otherwise. I'll admit the documentation needs clarification, but it's also true that you'll not find this "feature" documented anywhere in the 3.2 tree. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10225