c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic member as A::i

[Volker Reichelt]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9443; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
To: giovannibajo@libero.it
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
 larsbj@gullik.net, bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic member
 as A::i
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:47:38 +0200 (CEST)

 On 10 Apr, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
 
 > I think this audit trail is too complex now. I'd rather split it up into
 > smaller new bug reports and close this one. You can still have a link in the
 > description to this PR in case it's really needed.
 
 I agree.
 
 > This should be filed as a confusing error message / change request. I
 > personally believe that mainline's message is even more confusing. The error
 > message should also at least mention that A::i is not a static member.
 > Comeau's error message is "a non-static member reference must be relative to
 > a specific object".
 > Would you please file this separately?
 > 
 >> * The accepts-illegal bug in the case "A::j" still persists on mainline.
 >>   I changed the synopsis to reflect the situation.
 > 
 > This is a very serious regression in my opionion. Would you please post it
 > in a separate and clear PR?
 
 You're right. I'll file one for the accepts-illegal bug and one for the
 less-than-ideal error message and close this PR afterwards.
  
 >>   The boost problems regarding the 3.3 branch are probably a different
 >>   issue (an ICE in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c happens quite often -
 >>   the reason for the failure is usually buried elsewhere).
 >>   Alas there are no more recent results available on
 >>
 >>     http://cci.lbl.gov/boost/results/
 >>
 >>   The tests were performed with gcc 3.3-20030306. If the problems with the
 >>   3.3 branch persist, we should probably have a look at it. Could you test
 >>   it with a more recent compiler, Giovanni?
 > 
 > Sure, will do. If you think they are not related, this PR can be closed once
 > the new PRs are submitted.
 
 And you'll file a new PR for the gcc 3.3 vs. boost issue, if that is
 still not solved, right?
 
 > Giovanni Bajo
 
 Regards,
 Volker