------- Comment #11 from benjamin at smedbergs dot us 2006-08-11 11:44 ------- I'm not claiming that the behavior isn't conformant to the docs, I'm claiming that you regressed a construct that
1) doesn't need RTTI at all (in practice) 2) is used by a major software project And that both the code and the docs should be fixed to make this construct legal. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28687
