From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6872 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 20:56:02 -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 6839 invoked by uid 71); 10 Apr 2003 20:56:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030410205600.6838.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Volker Reichelt Subject: Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic member as A::i Reply-To: Volker Reichelt X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9443; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Volker Reichelt To: giovannibajo@libero.it Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, larsbj@gullik.net, bangerth@ices.utexas.edu Subject: Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic member as A::i Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:47:38 +0200 (CEST) On 10 Apr, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > I think this audit trail is too complex now. I'd rather split it up into > smaller new bug reports and close this one. You can still have a link in the > description to this PR in case it's really needed. I agree. > This should be filed as a confusing error message / change request. I > personally believe that mainline's message is even more confusing. The error > message should also at least mention that A::i is not a static member. > Comeau's error message is "a non-static member reference must be relative to > a specific object". > Would you please file this separately? > >> * The accepts-illegal bug in the case "A::j" still persists on mainline. >> I changed the synopsis to reflect the situation. > > This is a very serious regression in my opionion. Would you please post it > in a separate and clear PR? You're right. I'll file one for the accepts-illegal bug and one for the less-than-ideal error message and close this PR afterwards. >> The boost problems regarding the 3.3 branch are probably a different >> issue (an ICE in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c happens quite often - >> the reason for the failure is usually buried elsewhere). >> Alas there are no more recent results available on >> >> http://cci.lbl.gov/boost/results/ >> >> The tests were performed with gcc 3.3-20030306. If the problems with the >> 3.3 branch persist, we should probably have a look at it. Could you test >> it with a more recent compiler, Giovanni? > > Sure, will do. If you think they are not related, this PR can be closed once > the new PRs are submitted. And you'll file a new PR for the gcc 3.3 vs. boost issue, if that is still not solved, right? > Giovanni Bajo Regards, Volker