--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-28 09:55 ---
won't fix.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-02-28 14:12 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
won't fix.
I kind of gathered that after a year or so of inactivity.
Would you be willing to give us some more detail on
why no fix ?
For instance, is this fixed in some later version of gcc
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-28 14:14 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19710
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19710
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19710
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-30
20:01 ---
Confirmed.
Giovanni, the bug appears with your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-09/msg00960.html
Could you please have a look?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-31
00:31 ---
Yes, but I am not sure what is the best fix. Mark, shouldn't
cp_lexer_peek_nth_token always work, no matter how big the N is? I think it
could return NULL if N is too big, but segfaulting looks a little
