Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?

[mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>]

> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:20:51 -0800 (PST)

> Mark approved, assuming the usual testing requirements are met.

:-(

> I've now verified that this fix doesn't break any C++ or libstdc++
> tests (other tests aren't relevant since this only affects cc1plus).

If I understand the fix, it is worse than not having it, as it hides a
real bug?

> But I am now not sure that this fix is quite correct, though it does
> improve things.

I think the ICE is preferable, as otherwise you have to explain that
you have to break the ABI, which is worse.

> on Solaris gives

> 0000000000 T foo(T<true, 3>, T<true, 4>)
> 0000000000 T T<(true)&&(true), ((3)+(4))-(operator int((true)&&(true)))> func<true, true, 3, 4>(T<true, 3>, T<true, 4>)

Ick!  Looks like a bug.

> Comments?  I may still want this for 3.0.3, because it does make
> some cases that ICE'd before work correctly

Is that working correctly?  I don't think so.  From an, I don't care
about the abi, yes, it works fine, but from an, gosh, what do you mean
you totally broke the abi, I thought you said you weren't going to do
that, it looks like absolute horror.