--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 05:33 ---
Subject: Bug 18803
Author: pault
Date: Sun Apr 23 05:33:16 2006
New Revision: 113191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113191
Log:
2006-04-23 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 03:45 ---
Subject: Bug 18803
Author: pault
Date: Sun Apr 16 03:45:24 2006
New Revision: 112981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112981
Log:
2006-04-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
20:53 ---
Reverted patch for PR 18445, which broke this.
Fixed on the 3.4 branch, thusly.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
20:49 ---
Subject: Bug 18803
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-17 20:48:46
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-09-16 22:40 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] rejects access to operator() in template
"reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 16 Sep, nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
| > IMHO reverti
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-16
21:04 ---
On 16 Sep, nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> IMHO reverting 18445 would be the most prudent thing to do. The combination
> of 18845+18803 are touching too many things for my liking.
Gaby, would that
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-16
20:57 ---
IMHO reverting 18445 would be the most prudent thing to do. The combination of
18845+18803 are touching too many things for my liking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18803
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-16
20:34 ---
The backport of the fix for PR 18445 caused this.
I'll try to backport the fix for PR18803, too.
If that fails, reverting the patch for PR 18445 seems like the right thing
to me, because this was only an ic
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
11:36 ---
I haven't backported anything recently.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nathan at g
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.5
Known to work||3.4.4
Summary|[3.4.5 regression] rejects |[3
10 matches
Mail list logo