From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-34252-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 416 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 02:16:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 401 invoked by uid 71); 6 May 2003 02:16:01 -0000
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 02:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030506021601.400.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com>
Subject: Re: c++/2948: different behaviour directly to C++ vs. saving -E
	output
Reply-To: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/2948; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/2948: different behaviour directly to C++ vs. saving -E
	output
Date: 05 May 2003 19:07:48 -0700

 This is very old and my memory on the subject has faded.  I do not
 believe that it is an issue any more.
 
 Please close it somehow.  Thanks.
 
 Sean
 
 On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 18:57, bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 > 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