------- 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

Reply via email to