--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-21
21:11 ---
Subject: Bug 20028
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-21 21:11:51
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-21
21:34 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:02 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01020.html for 3.4.x.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jcobyrne at cox dot net 2005-02-17 21:09
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01020.html for
3.4.x.
The following code _IS_ correct and _DOES_ compile on 3.2.
template class T class A
{ protected: typedef
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
21:14 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
I guess I stumbled on the segfault by mistake in my vain attempts to get the
code to compile on 3.3 and greater. Syntactically and semantically, I have
--- Additional Comments From jcobyrne at cox dot net 2005-02-17 21:21
---
If the code is wrong, what accounts for the fact that wrong code would compile
on 3.2 and not on 3.3 or 3.4? Also, Alexandrescu did not write it wrong, as it
is also used in his Loki library that is known to
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
21:26 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
If the code is wrong, what accounts for the fact that wrong code would
compile
on 3.2 and not on 3.3 or 3.4? Also, Alexandrescu did not write it wrong, as
it
is also used
