This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: [patch, backport] Ok to backport fix for PR c++/29388 with change?

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Steve Ellcey <> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 23:01 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Steve Ellcey <> wrote:
>> > I would like to backport the patch for PR c++/29388 to the 4.3 branch
>> > but it needs to be changed slightly. ?On ToT/4.4 the patch uses
>> > MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P which does not exist on the 4.3 branch. ?But
>> > IS_AGGR_TYPE does exist and has 'almost' the same definition and even
>> > says to think of it as MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P so I would like to just use
>> > that instead. ?Does that sound reasonable?
>> >
>> > OK to backport the patch with the macro change?
>> >
>> > Tested on IA64 HP-UX with no regressions.
>> Any special reason to backport an ice-on-invalid bugfix? ?I'd err on the
>> safe side for ice-on-invalid ones.
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
> I just thought it would be good to close the defect and get it out of
> the regression lists. ?It currently shows up in the 4.3 serious
> regression list. ?We could downgrade it but it would still show up as a
> regression in the complete 4.3 regression list. ?I would be happy to
> close it as 'will not fix for 4.3' if we wanted to do that instead.

Yes, I think for ice-on-invalid that's the most reasonable action at this
point.  Of course C++ maintainers may disagree with me here.


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