Seongbae Park wrote:
On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2.
Lets first get the patch which fixes the ICE regression that this
patch
On 5/2/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seongbae Park wrote:
On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2.
Lets first get the patch
I discovered PR29365 today while testing 4.2.0 RC2 on a client's
codebase. This causes some of my code, based on the popular pimpl
idiom, to generate warnings, even with no warning flags specified. If
there's a way to turn it off without patching the source, I can't find it.
Given the
Aaron W. LaFramboise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I discovered PR29365 today while testing 4.2.0 RC2 on a client's
codebase. This causes some of my code, based on the popular pimpl
idiom, to generate warnings, even with no warning flags specified. If
there's a way to turn it off without
On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2.
Lets first get the patch which fixes the ICE regression that this
patch causes approved :).
Which can be found at:
On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2.
Lets first get the patch which fixes the ICE regression that this
patch causes approved :).
Which
