------- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-09 23:17 -------
Well, IMHO, avoiding this SIGSEGV is so easy, I would change anyway both shift
and cshift (i.e., wrap everything in a check that size() > 0), and be done with
it, if nobody strongly disagree... While we are at it, quickly looking at the
code I don't think the current code deals correctly with { n : |n| > size() },
both shift and cshift, a much more general issue, if I read correctly the
standard, and also rather straightforward to solve.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30416
