This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/11105] [3.3/3.4 regression of sorts] ICE in mangle_conv_op_name_for_type
- From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 7 Aug 2003 18:14:33 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/11105] [3.3/3.4 regression of sorts] ICE in mangle_conv_op_name_for_type
- References: <20030605233918.11105.bangerth@dealii.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=11105
------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2003-08-07 18:14 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression of sorts] ICE in
mangle_conv_op_name_for_type
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 11:00, jhr dot walter at t-online dot de wrote:
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11105
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From jhr dot walter at t-online dot de 2003-08-07 18:00 -------
> Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't see how this answers my original question
> in bug 11812: is this the regression of a regression or did the definition of
> ABI compatibility change from 3.3 to 3.3.1?
Neither.
It's a bug fix. A necessary consequence of the bug fix is that some
functions are mangled differently.
We've never tried to say that maintaining ABI compatibility would
prevent us from fixing bugs. That's not true for the C compiler either.