This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/11512] [3.4 Regression] Spurious warning for comma-operator in templates
- From: "janis187 at us dot ibm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 6 Aug 2003 23:30:10 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/11512] [3.4 Regression] Spurious warning for comma-operator in templates
- References: <20030713133247.11512.jan@etpmod.phys.tue.nl>
- 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=11512
janis187 at us dot ibm dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
------- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2003-08-06 23:30 -------
The regression in PR 11512 was introduced or exposed by this patch:
--- gcc/gcc/ChangeLog ---
2003-07-08 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
* fold-const.c (make_range): Do not access operand 1 for a
zero-operand operator.
--- gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog ---
2003-07-08 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
* cp-tree.def (NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR): New node.
* cp-tree.h (build_call_from_tree): Remove.
(build_member_call): Likewise.
[lots more]
At least, that's what my regression hunt came up with on
i686-pc-linux-gnu using the submitter's test case with -Wall, but it
doesn't fit with the date range that Andrew reported in comment #1.
If this looks inconsistent, let me know and I'll test a series of
compilers to see if it's an intermittent bug.