--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:08 ---
The patch in comment #2 was successfully bootstrapped and regtested. Ok for
trunk?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41149
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-08-25 09:13 ---
Subject: Re: -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer
components
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, janus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:08 ---
The patch in
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:35 ---
Subject: Bug 41149
Author: janus
Date: Tue Aug 25 09:35:41 2009
New Revision: 151075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151075
Log:
2009-08-25 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:38 ---
Fixed with r151075. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 11:21 ---
Please drop the patch in gcc-patches as well (just post it with a comment that
you've committed it to fix this PR).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41149
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 09:21 ---
Seems like by design, see tree-pretty-print.c:print_call_name
Likely for printing prettier member function names. IMHO we should just
drop this function on the floor considering it prints t.w (...) for
struct
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 19:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Seems like by design, see tree-pretty-print.c:print_call_name
Thanks for pointing me at the right place.
Likely for printing prettier member function names. IMHO we should just
drop
