https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to eyenseo from comment #3) > I would like to know what a critical or major bug would be if a segfault is > not? I think that a segfault is quite devastating, especially when working > with error codes that should help get out of mess. The severity field is almost useless, we don't use it in practice because too many users think their bug is the most critical one ever and set it to critical or blocker, but it's up to the GCC devs to determine the severity. A segfault bug is not necessarily critical anyway, it's just a bug. Especially a C++11 bug in GCC 4.9 given that C++11 support in 4.9 was still labelled as experimental, and what you're doing is not supported (see below). (In reply to eyenseo from comment #4) > The ubuntu system I used is "normal" no testing / unstable. I have no idea what that means in terms of which version of libstdc++ you have, but when I compile your preprocessed source and link to GCC 5's libstdc++ I see the wrong result (but not a segfault). That strongly suggests the behaviour you observe on Ubuntu is due to using the experimental C++11 support in GCC 4.9 with the non-experimental and incompatible C++11 parts of the library from GCC 5, i.e. PR 66438. I do hope to get a workaround for the problem, but it's low priority (definitely not critical) because mixing C++11 code from different GCC versions was not supported before GCC 5.
