--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 13:46 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug.
> Actually we do reject it with -pedantic so that is not a different bug after
> all but a change, a de
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 03:57 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug.
Actually we do reject it with -pedantic so that is not a different bug after
all but a change, a delerate change in fact.
--
ht
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 03:49 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Note, when you add:
> int i = ((x.g(&x)), 3);
> a suitable diagnostic is emitted.
Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 22:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Related to PR 19809, I think this actually is fixed now.
> Can ou report what version of 4.2.0 which you are using?
>
GNU C++ version 4.2.0 20060823
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 22:17 ---
Related to PR 19809, I think this actually is fixed now.
Can ou report what version of 4.2.0 which you are using?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046
