https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64927
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6) > > The revision numbers you refer to belong to the 4.9-branch. > > Indeed -> I was trying to find the commit that fixed the problem (without > success). > > > IMO it is not fixed on 4.8. If there is no easy solution, I'd rather > > prefer to mark it in an appropriate way (wontfix?), so that others > > can see that this problem is known for particular gcc versions. > > I think the only "appropriate way" is FIXED as it is the case for 4.9 and > trunk. Closing as WONTFIX will be misleading for these revisions. Note that > 4.8 will be closed pretty soon. My reasoning is based on the observation that Tobias Burnus just closed PR64474 as WONTFIX for the similar reason: 4.9 and 5 don't have the resp. bug, all 4.8.x have.
