------- Additional Comments From stefaandr at hotmail dot com 2005-05-30 19:21
-------
confirmed, I cannot reproduce with the given testcase either. But my original
source code still triggers a (possibly the same) bug. I've extracted a new
testcase:
struct M {
double data[16];
double* operator[](int row){ return &data[row*4]; };
void set() {
for (int i=0;i<16;++i)
data[i]=0.0;
}
};
struct A {
M m1;
void test();
};
void A::test() {
M m2;
m2[2][2]=0.;
m1.set();
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21734