This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/10940] [3.3/3.4 regression] Bad code with explicit specialization
- From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 22 May 2003 18:38:05 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/10940] [3.3/3.4 regression] Bad code with explicit specialization
- 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=10940
bangerth@dealii.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|Explicit Template |[3.3/3.4 regression] Bad
|Specialization of Static |code with explicit
|Member Function Generates |specialization
|Bad Code |
------- Additional Comments From bangerth@dealii.org 2003-05-22 18:38 -------
Forgot to say this: with 2.95, the parser has a problem with understanding
the explicit specialization. Making it a general template, the code doesn't
crash. So I'd say it's a regression, though it's hard to judge here.
(Then let's say that an invalid error message is less bad than a miscompilation,
and then it's a regression :-)
W.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.