This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic memberas A::i
- From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- To: giovannibajo at libero dot it
- Cc: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org,larsbj at gullik dot net, bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:47:38 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic memberas A::i
- Reply-to: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
On 10 Apr, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I think this audit trail is too complex now. I'd rather split it up into
> smaller new bug reports and close this one. You can still have a link in the
> description to this PR in case it's really needed.
I agree.
> This should be filed as a confusing error message / change request. I
> personally believe that mainline's message is even more confusing. The error
> message should also at least mention that A::i is not a static member.
> Comeau's error message is "a non-static member reference must be relative to
> a specific object".
> Would you please file this separately?
>
>> * The accepts-illegal bug in the case "A::j" still persists on mainline.
>> I changed the synopsis to reflect the situation.
>
> This is a very serious regression in my opionion. Would you please post it
> in a separate and clear PR?
You're right. I'll file one for the accepts-illegal bug and one for the
less-than-ideal error message and close this PR afterwards.
>> The boost problems regarding the 3.3 branch are probably a different
>> issue (an ICE in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c happens quite often -
>> the reason for the failure is usually buried elsewhere).
>> Alas there are no more recent results available on
>>
>> http://cci.lbl.gov/boost/results/
>>
>> The tests were performed with gcc 3.3-20030306. If the problems with the
>> 3.3 branch persist, we should probably have a look at it. Could you test
>> it with a more recent compiler, Giovanni?
>
> Sure, will do. If you think they are not related, this PR can be closed once
> the new PRs are submitted.
And you'll file a new PR for the gcc 3.3 vs. boost issue, if that is
still not solved, right?
> Giovanni Bajo
Regards,
Volker