From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105439-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27627 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2004 18:28:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27289 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2004 18:27:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.80)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2004 18:27:44 -0000
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171])
	by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D31C6F38E; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25070;
	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iAIIRff08548;
	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:27:41 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:44:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>
Cc: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>,
	Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>,
	gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues
Message-ID: <20041118102741.A8347@synopsys.com>
References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <FD2BC998-3914-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <78169FF3-3916-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <20041117212847.A26376@synopsys.com> <6F5FC748-7BBD-44B9-8DDC-246949F16102@apple.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <6F5FC748-7BBD-44B9-8DDC-246949F16102@apple.com>; from mrs@apple.com on Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:19:18AM -0800
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:19:18AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > I doubt if you will get the flood of questions you anticipate, because
> > few people even knew that the extension was there.  It is possible that
> > someone has a production program that is not valid C++ that will now
> > break, but if this happens we just tell them how to fix the program.
> 
> Just a random data point, 58 out of 1252 (4.6%) projects failed to 
> build because of it.

Really?  Can you show some of the example errors?  And are they really
due to this extension specifically, or to other changes in gcc 3.4.x?