http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
--- Comment #7 from Eamon Nerbonne 2011-01-23
13:31:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> it might get analysed sooner if you try to reduce the code to something
> smaller
> than 7 lines
Yeah, I realize: I've been putting that off, because,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
--- Comment #4 from Eamon Nerbonne 2011-01-20
11:06:04 UTC ---
Has anyone seen this bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
--- Comment #3 from Eamon Nerbonne 2010-12-23
09:33:11 UTC ---
Oh, and finally: a comment on the mingw64 tracker is meaningless to me but
perhaps useful to you:
ktietz70 said:
"So, I investigate your issue a bit. First this is for sure a gcc bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
--- Comment #2 from Eamon Nerbonne 2010-12-23
09:31:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22844
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22844
Unpreprocessed source (depends on Eigen3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
--- Comment #1 from Eamon Nerbonne 2010-12-23
09:30:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 22843
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22843
G++'s output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47049
Summary: internal compiler error: in write_unnamed_type_name
due to C++0x lamba use
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #32 from emn13+gcc at nerbonne dot org 2010-02-01 13:24 ---
I realize that you *can* enable a specific warning that might solve this; but
that's a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The point is that if you've old (or external) C code *anywhere* in your
--- Comment #29 from emn13+gcc at nerbonne dot org 2010-02-01 10:16 ---
What's particularly unfortunate about this instance is the fact that gcc fails
to warn you about the erroneous code, despite the obvious signs and despite
-Wall.
Line 15 is obviously potentially problematic, b
