------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17 16:49 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Thanks, I will check it tomorrow. However, this behavior is different from > the > gcc 3, documented nowhere and broke (in a very bad way) a large program with > good reliability record (so far). Can this be mentioned somewhere in the gcc > info?
why, the type was never correct in the first place. It just happened to work before 4.0.0 because we did not do that many optimizations which could have taken this into effect. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
