------- 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