------- Comment #16 from pkasting at google dot com 2006-08-22 20:31 ------- Comment 4 seems to make it clear that GCC's current behavior differs from past behavior that was legal under the spec. I fail to see the utility of the current behavior or why it would be objectionable to apply the patch on this bug.
(In reply to comment #12) > | I'm not claiming that the behavior isn't conformant to the docs, I'm > claiming > | that you regressed a construct > > No, we did not regress because the documentation was very explicit. The documentation was previously incorrect. The compiler was changed to match the documentation's behavior, rather than the documentation being changed to match the compiler's behavior and the C++ standard. The patch on this bug makes the IMO correct fix of keeping the compiler behavior and documentation in sync, but making them match the old, standards-compliant behavior that existing products rely on. This bug should be REOPENED. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28687
