------- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 18:35 -------
Uh, make no mistake, this *is* a regression; see the original description.
There's a revision before which this test worked and a revision after
which it does not work. This happened in 4.1 era, so it's a 4.1 regression.
Whether or not the code that the ext/pb_assoc test is *intended* to test
is part of any gcc release is not central; it has no bearing on whether
the behavior is a regression. It'd be like saying whether miscompilation
of a piece of code being a regression depends on whether that code was part
of the gcc release that miscompiled it.
I changed the PR component to a historically more probable one, to avoid
blaming libstdc++, as it seems that's an conclusion you're trying to avoid.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|libstdc++ |middle-end
Summary|ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i|[4.1 regression]
|f.cc execution test |ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i
| |f.cc execution test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815
