This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug debug/11325] [3.4 regression] nested class debug info incorrect


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]