g++.old-deja/g++.other/anon7.C

[Mark Mitchell]

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 12:53, Per Bothner wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > Since your patch caused this regression,
> 
> That is rather arguable - my patch incorrectly *hid* a bug in 
> pushdecl_class_level.  A rather unusual case, admittedly.

I think your first patch did that.  Your second patch caused a previous
passing test to start failing.  If you ran the regression tests before
your check-in and again afterwards, a new test failed.

Our guidelines are clear -- even if you uncover a "latent" bug, it's
your responsibility to fix it.

Thank you for doing that!

> Well, here's an attached patch.  It's hard for me to interpret the 'make 
> check' output because of the many failures.  I noticed this regression 
> from a last time I ran the testsuite:

The thing to do is to run the tests before and after applying your patch
and compare the output.
 
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/packed2.C (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /home/bothner/GNU/gcc.head/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/packed2.C:18: 
> warning: ignoring packed attribute on unpacked non-POD field `A B::a'
> 
> I'm assuming this is an unrelated regression.

You are correct.

The patch looks great; please check it in!

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com