--- Comment #12 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-27 23:38 ---
Thanks Volker
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
--- Comment #11 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 15:45
---
I removed the dead code as discussed in comment #8 and later:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-11/msg01213.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
--- Comment #10 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-13 11:22
---
Closing, since the problem is fixed on mainline.
I'll submit a patch to remove the obsolete code once 4.1 has branched.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
15:32 ---
It might indeed be obsolete code: I don't think you can currently create an
union (or a record) with only unnamed fields. If you want to purse this
further, you could regtest changing this:
if (!fiel
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
15:12 ---
The ICE is fixed now. But maybe some additional code cleanup is needed:
Giovanni, what about the following code snippet from typeck2.c?
Is the comment still valid? What about the error message, is it
stil
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
14:50 ---
Subject: Bug 15938
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 14:50:47
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
13:18 ---
=
typedef union
{
struct { int i; };
struct { char c; };
} A;
A a = { 0 };
A b = {{ 0 }};
A c = {{{ 0 }}}; // { dg-error "braces" }
===
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-21 02:35 ---
Subject: Re: ICE with anonymous unions
"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes, it's because of my patch.
|
| I would like to know if we agree that the code is invalid or n
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
01:51 ---
Yes, it's because of my patch.
I would like to know if we agree that the code is invalid or not. It's a bit
hard to have a definitive answer since it is GNU C++ (uses an extension), but
given that the C fr
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-20
13:17 ---
On mainline the code is accepted since today.
This is probably due to Giovanni's patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-07/msg00718.html
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-20 20:13
---
Seenms doable...
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Last reconfirmed|2004-06-11 13:33:16 |2005-01-06 02:02:15
date|
14 matches
Mail list logo
