--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 04:06 ---
Subject: Bug 34824
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 13 04:06:03 2008
New Revision: 132282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132282
Log:
PR c++/34824
* call.c (convert_like_real): Pass
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 20:26 ---
*** Bug 28475 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||2.95.4
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #8 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2008-01-23 22:48
---
As long as we're digging back...
the test case in Comment #4
also ICEs:
gcc version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)
also works:
gcc version 2.95.3 [FreeBSD] 20010315 (release)
--
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 13:49 ---
Yes, probably even a dup of that. I don't have 2.95 to verify this is a
regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34824
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 20:29 ---
Related testcase:
struct A;
struct B
{
B (A const );
B (B );
};
struct A
{
A (B) {}
};
B
f (A const a)
{
return B (a);
}
which doesn't have explicit at all segfaults as well, also endless recursion.
In
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-01-21 23:23 ---
Related to PR28475, then?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34824
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 05:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
2.95 wrongly accepts this code, but doesn't ICE. So not a regression
IMHO.
No it is a regression as anything (besides another ICE) to ICE is considered a
regression.I remember we put
