Re: C++ testcase question: pointers to member functions

[Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:21:14PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Mike Stump wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> >
> >>The test doesn't work now, so apparently the curious extension is
> >>gone and no one has complained about its absence.  Should the test
> >>be removed, or is worth keeping it with dg-bogus replaced by
> >>dg-error?
> >
> >
> >If we want the feature to go (I think this is safe, despite that 
> >internally I think we are hitting it), the testcase should be removed.  
> >If someone steps forward to argue for the feature, they can always put 
> >the testcase back in, if the feature is accepted.  So, I think it is 
> >safe to disappear it now.
> 
> This feature has been gone for years.  It's fine to replace dg-bogus 
> with dg-error in that test, and make it a compilation test, as you suggest.

I removed the test yesterday as Mike recommended, although I should have
waited for a C++ maintainer.  Shall I put it back with that change?

Janis