This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] fix c++/47589 - backport to 4.4 branch
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:06:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix c++/47589 - backport to 4.4 branch
- References: <AANLkTimy-0dfdBd1cGbFS93oFqH-K4=9N+8boQpmsN+i@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> this patch fixes PR c++/47589 (a 4.3/4.4 ice-on-valid-code regression)
> by backporting Jakub's fix for c++/45894, which was caused by the same
> problem but only manifested with -std=c++0x -Wsequence-point
>
> Jakub's new test doesn't compile on the 4.4 branch, so this adds a new
> test reduced from the original reproducer attached to c++/47589
>
> Tested x86_64-linux, OK for 4.4?
>
> ==> cp/ChangeLog <==
> 2011-02-02 ?Jonathan Wakely ?<jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
>
> ? ? ? ?PR c++/47589
> ? ? ? ?Backport from mainline
> ? ? ? ?2010-11-09 ?Jakub Jelinek ?<jakub@redhat.com>
>
> ? ? ? ?PR c++/45894
> ? ? ? ?* tree.c (lvalue_kind): Don't crash if ref has NULL type.
>
> ==> testsuite/ChangeLog <==
> 2011-02-02 ?Jonathan Wakely ?<jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
>
> ? ? ? ?PR c++/47589
> ? ? ? ?* g++.dg/pr47589.C: New test.
>
>
> Should I also check the new test into the 4.5 branch and trunk to
> avoid future regressions?
Yes, testcases should always go to all newer branches (and trunk) as well.
Richard.