From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12810 invoked by alias); 14 May 2003 08:16:02 -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 12758 invoked by uid 71); 14 May 2003 08:16:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030514081602.12757.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: c++/10776: Large aggregate initializers cause GCC to fail Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01552.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10776; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gonz@ratloop.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/10776: Large aggregate initializers cause GCC to fail Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 01:12:23 -0700 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- trail&database=gcc&pr=10776 Hello, ugh, that was a nasty bug you found! Good news is that while I can reproduce it on gcc 3.2, and 3.3 branch, on latest mainline (20030513), the code compiles successfully (ie doesn't sit there indefinitely). So the problem is fixed in mainline. Dara