This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug other/11489] [3.4 Regression] ICE/segfault on legal code
- From: "neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Jul 2003 06:51:31 -0000
- Subject: [Bug other/11489] [3.4 Regression] ICE/segfault on legal code
- References: <20030710141450.11489.numerical.simulation@web.de>
- 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=11489
neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zack at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c++ |other
------- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-11 06:51 -------
I'm assigning this to Zack, since it'll probably be fixed by the work he's doing on the intl/ directory and it's certainly related to it.
I suspect the code is irrelevant given my vague understanding of the iconv situation, but your environment may be relevant; let me go out on a limb
and guess that there is an iconv installed on your hpux system, but it, uh, is "insufficient for GCC's purposes", and GCC configury didn't realize
that.
Markus Werle wrote:
>I cannot stand it that C++ features which once were fine now all are broken.
That's partly due to the wholesale rewrite of the C++ parser, which was necessary in the long run in order to fix *other* C++ features. It's also
partly due to other major infrastructural improvements, which were needed for similar reasons (this bug is due to a major infrastructure improvement
by Zack.)
>This compiler is less than alpha software ...
Well, as a matter of fact, "stage 1" of development is probably equivalent to a pre-alpha stage, since "stage 3" is approximately equivalent to beta
testing. And you've been using stage 1, since it just ended a day or two ago. :-)
>Agreed. I just cannot see a balance right now.
>Alas, not once-in-a-while, but every-day-something-else gets broken.
We seem to be in the unfortunate position at the moment that fixes for one big bug often cause other little bugs; I'm sure you've been in that phase
of software projects before, as it's unavoidable.
>Or do you wish me to wait until release?
If you want a product with a limited, known collection of bugs, you should!