--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-21 14:02 ---
Subject: Re: no compile time array index checking
> Doesn't -fmudflap handle this?
The idea was to get a compile-time error whenever pos
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-21 20:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to members
> I think this was exposed by the patch for PR 19203 (aka DR 214), could you
> double check that, that patch makes
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-23 15:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with
pointers to members
> Definitely a serious bug, but I'm not sure I want to try to fix it
> before 4.0.1. I'm really t
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-24 16:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to members
> Although I have not developed a patch, any patch will (more than likely) be
> non-trivial. I'll work on
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-24 16:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to members
(Sleep deprivation during the week leads to such marvels on Fridays...)
> This PR will is about the that 4.0.1 wo
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-08-09 17:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE with
-ftree-vectorize in verify_ssa
> Maybe there are multiple unrelated problems grouped under this one PR. Or
> maybe
> PR22543 is not a duplicate of
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-04 18:48 ---
Subject: RE: Nested class has access to Nestee's private
member functions
> I read suggestions that this should be changed in the next standard, but I
> don't think it's ch
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2004-11-26 04:33 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning
in
> The issue is not taking the address of the copy constructor, but the
> change in calling convention. It you declare a copy const
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2004-11-30 17:06 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -Wsynth warning in
> I'd like to re-assign this to a g++ bug, or middle end or whatever. Sound
> like a plan?
Yes, certainly. I guess it's a
