This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:22 +0000
- Subject: Re: middle-end/8306: [3.2/3.3 regression] ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:09 +0000, <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org> wrote:
>
> > Correction, the "minimal example" no-longer fails, but the full testsuite
> > entry does still fail.
>
> Does that still represent a regression? Mark said that previous compilers
> would have just rejected such code.
>
> Jason
Probably not. The 2.95.3 compiler I have gives:
/work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7.h:3:
sorry, not implemented: bit-fields larger than 64 bits
In file included from /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat
/break/bitfield7_y.C:3:
/work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7.h:2:
in declaration of `U::i'
I don't have 3.0 or 3.1 built to test against.
R.