This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- To: obrien at NUXI dot com
- Subject: Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- From: Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 22:23:25 +0200
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure (quatramaran)
- References: <XFMail.email@example.com>
In article <20000905121906.D10431@dragon.nuxi.com> you write:
>Jeff Law tries to do a little bit of work on that branch, but the other
>GCC committers need to help him out to make any real branch maintenance
>take place. C++ in 2.95.2 is so bad that I know many C++ that have had
>to move the Russian Roulette game of 2.96 to get a [sometimes] working
As far as I could tell, the gcc 2.95 branch works reasonably well for C++.
The code it outputs is definitely not perfect, but at least it seems to
compile reasonable C++ code with no errors.
I'd be interested in particulars, maybe we can try to improve the 2.95
branch quality ?