https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107460
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Chris MacGregor from comment #4) > @Andrew, how did you get the output in comment #2, with "tree check: > expected enumeral_type, have record_type in tsubst_copy" in it? When gcc is configured --enable-checking=yes (or as on the development trunk it is enabled by default) Gcc has many extra internal checks to make sure things are not accessed incorrectly but only enabled if requested for release builds as they introduce some overhead on compile time. > > Also, should this be marked as directly a dup of 103081, rather than as dup > of a dup (105787)? (I did look at 103081, but it wasn't clear that it was > necessarily the same bug, since the upper part of the backtrace is different > from what I saw, and the lower part seems to be missing in the 103081 > report.) Yes. Though it does not matter that much as it does not change anything in fixing the bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 103081 ***
