c++/9750: Strange code in handling of COND? expressions in cp/call.c
bangerth@dealii.org
bangerth@dealii.org
Wed Feb 19 02:50:00 GMT 2003
Synopsis: Strange code in handling of COND? expressions in cp/call.c
Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->mmitchel
Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Feb 19 02:50:19 2003
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Inserted the comment before the dubious part of the code as
well as most of the other stuff around.
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Wed Feb 19 02:50:19 2003
State-Changed-Why:
True -- good spot! The code is still in present CVS.
CVS annotate shows for this part:
1.1 (law 11-Aug-97): return candidates;
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99):
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99): /* We don't check that the two types are the same; the logic
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99): below will actually create two candidates; one in which both
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99): parameter types are TYPE1, and one in which both parameter
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99): types are TYPE2. */
1.1 (law 11-Aug-97): break;
1.152 (mmitchel 26-Jul-99):
1.329 (mrs 09-Aug-02): /* These arguments do not make for a valid overloaded operator. */
1.1 (law 11-Aug-97): return candidates;
So I guess Mark might know best what should come after the
comment he inserted. Probably something easy enough to
check.
If you have more of this dubious stuff, let us know!
Thanks
Wolfgang
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9750
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list