This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]

From: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:41:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
References: <40313773.2060603@avtrex.com> <20040216215352.GA5625@deneb.enyo.de> <40313DC6.9090407@avtrex.com> <185a01c3f4d9$acf31c00$aa422597@bagio> <20040217090837.A2884@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck wrote:

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 11:10:23PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
David Daney wrote:

Is it really the right-thing to make it fail under 3.4?
Yes, because it's not standard C++, and we're trying to cut on the extensions.
As suggested by Florian, please open a bugreport about:
- Missing entry in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html for this change, since it appears to be very common. - Enhancement request for the diagnostic.
I think that the lack of a decent diagnostic for this should be considered
a bug, not an enhancement request.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14181

References:
- Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
  - From: David Daney
- Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
  - From: Florian Weimer
- Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
  - From: David Daney
- Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: Possible new[] regression in 3.4 WRT 3.3.[12]
  - From: Joe Buck

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