This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++.old-deja/g++.other/anon7.C
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 12:53, Per Bothner wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Since your patch caused this regression,
>
> That is rather arguable - my patch incorrectly *hid* a bug in
> pushdecl_class_level. A rather unusual case, admittedly.
I think your first patch did that. Your second patch caused a previous
passing test to start failing. If you ran the regression tests before
your check-in and again afterwards, a new test failed.
Our guidelines are clear -- even if you uncover a "latent" bug, it's
your responsibility to fix it.
Thank you for doing that!
> Well, here's an attached patch. It's hard for me to interpret the 'make
> check' output because of the many failures. I noticed this regression
> from a last time I ran the testsuite:
The thing to do is to run the tests before and after applying your patch
and compare the output.
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/packed2.C (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /home/bothner/GNU/gcc.head/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C:18:
> warning: ignoring packed attribute on unpacked non-POD field `A B::a'
>
> I'm assuming this is an unrelated regression.
You are correct.
The patch looks great; please check it in!
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com