--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:41 ---
*** Bug 28348 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 18:10 ---
2006-09-01 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/28705
* semantics.c (finish_call_expr): Add assert.
* name-lookup.c (lookup_arg_dependent): Check we found an overload
or an
--- Comment #3 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 18:10 ---
2006-09-01 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/28705
* semantics.c (finish_call_expr): Add assert.
* name-lookup.c (lookup_arg_dependent): Check we found an overload
or an
--
nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|P3
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28705
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-12 22:57 ---
3.4.0 gave an error so this is a regression:
t.cc: In function `bool g()':
t.cc:11: error: no match for call to `(N::s) (N::s*)'
I don't know if this is invalid code or not, but we should not be ICEing.
--
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-08-13 00:26 ---
The code is invalid (because there is no constructor s::s(s*)), but
we can make the code valid and still ICE:
--
namespace N
{
struct A { A(A*); };
void foo(const A );
}
templatetypename T
