https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix.morgner at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Sun Jan 24 17:45:21 2016
New Revision: 232778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Fix the remaining PR c++/24666 blockers"
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24663
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Jan 19 00:19:16 2016
New Revision: 232547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix the remaining PR c++/24666 blockers (arrays decay to pointers too ear
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 04:53 ---
Note you are most likely right that GCC is applying pointers to array too
early, see the meta-bug (PR 24666) which I just filed after you filed these two
bugs, there were two other bugs about arrays decaying too earl
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 04:44 ---
Confirmed, I think this is another case of the arrays decaying too early.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
