--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-13 20:13
---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20794
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20794
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-05-02 14:14
---
see patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02874.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20794
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-04-27 08:59
---
(In reply to comment #18)
I submitted a patch, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02284.html,
but as the mail says it results in a lot of regressions in the compat and
vector tests.
I'll see what
--- Additional Comments From sje at cup dot hp dot com 2005-04-27 19:44
---
It looks like most of the compat tests have been fixed but I still get two
failures. They are tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 and
tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t027. I cut down t002 and wound up with
void
--- Additional Comments From sje at cup dot hp dot com 2005-04-22 20:22
---
I submitted a patch, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02284.html,
but as the mail says it results in a lot of regressions in the compat and
vector tests.
--
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
17:06 ---
Joseph, RTH, and I all feel this should be invalid code. I think that's
consensus. So, I've updated the PR. Patches to actually issue a diagnostic
would be welcome.
--
What|Removed
