This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug debug/11325] [3.4 regression] nested class debug info incorrect
- From: "bkoz at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 26 Jun 2003 18:16:18 -0000
- Subject: [Bug debug/11325] [3.4 regression] nested class debug info incorrect
- References: <20030626030149.11325.bkoz@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11325
------- Additional Comments From bkoz at redhat dot com 2003-06-26 18:16 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] nested class debug info
incorrect
Thanks Wolfgang!
>Confirmed. A regression on mainline w.r.t. 3.3.
Do you have cc1pluses in the range of 2003-02-16 to 2003-03-19? I don't.
It would probably be helpful to narrow this down further. Phil, perhaps
you do. This bugzilla report has a small bit of C++ code that could
probably be analyzed to narrow down the range.
If you can, I'd appreciate it. This may have absolutely nothing to do
with C++ code, but be elsewhere.
>Benjamin, just for the future:
>a) If you confirm a bug, please leave a note in the audit trail who did
>it and what were the findings.
ok, sorry.
>b) please don't confirm your own bug reports. I'm very much in favor of
>peer review, as it doesn't help anyone to have PRs that seem to be
>analyzed but might or might not be due to a local installation problem.
>I'm not claiming this is the case here (in fact, I just confirmed your
>bug :-), but I think it's better to have everything confirmed by
>someone else on a different system.
Yep, agreed. Won't do this in the future.
I was having connectivity problems, so just checked today that this bug
did in fact hit bugzilla. Once there..... I thought I'd confirm. Sorry.
best,
benjamin