From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6387 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2003 15:26:00 -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 6374 invoked by uid 71); 21 Apr 2003 15:26:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030421152600.6373.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/9847: [3.4 regression] ICE on :?-operator with double class definition in expand_expr Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9847; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Giovanni Bajo Cc: rassahah@neofonie.de, , Subject: Re: c++/9847: [3.4 regression] ICE on :?-operator with double class definition in expand_expr Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:21:11 -0500 (CDT) > Why is this listed as 3.4 regression? I get "confused by earlier errors" on > 3.3, which means ICE if compiled with self-check. I think it's a 3.3/3.4 > regression, on error recovery. Good question. You're right in any case, and I changed the synopsis. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/