------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17 03:36 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > You mean other than the reciently filed bug Bug 19455 referanced as a > duplicate > of this one, demonstraiing valid code which used to work as expected? > > (wouldn't this qualify as the bug not being un-noticed?)
If someone complained 6 months after the change and right after 3.4.0 was released I would not have a problem, but a year and a release later and the change was done on purpose I don't feel like this should change (now I don't have the last word, only the release manager does). This is unlike most regressions where they were not done on purpose but this one was and nobody even raised anything right after wards or even close to the release of 3.4.0 as being a regression then. Also look at the date at which this bug opened, nobody complained about doing it differently than being rejected. (In total, over 7 months have gone by the time it was closed, more enough time for gcc developers to say something and why and how typeof of a bitfield should work). One more thing, one year and a release for a change is too much time in any real code development to change your mind and the sytanx of something. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10333
