From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3514 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 01:57:27 -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 3479 invoked by uid 48); 6 May 2003 01:57:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 01:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030506015727.3478.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sean@mcneil.com From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sean@mcneil.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/2948: different behaviour directly to C++ vs. saving -E output X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: different behaviour directly to C++ vs. saving -E output State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->feedback State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Tue May 6 01:57:26 2003 State-Changed-Why: This report is already quite old -- do you know whether the behavior you saw persists with a more recent gcc? Thanks Wolfgang http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=2948