------- Comment #2 from gin at mo dot msk dot ru 2006-06-23 19:57 ------- Subject: Re: loses type in debug info
As for marking the bug as already reported, this seems plausible to me. Confirming that `.i' sent in my bug report uses "lost" type in exactly the same way as test code in PR 21391; moreover, the entire program including that `.i' appears to use it exactly the same way. Unfortunately, checking for that would mean vgrep in bug database, which could not possibly do. So did violate <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> wrt duplicate bug reports, and most likely will do that again. After all, nobody makes slightest fuss about that, and before doing it, he should ensure that bug database is easily vgrep'able, that is, fairly small :-/. "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: > Next time please don't paste the preprocessed source in gccbug or in the > comments section in bugzilla. Please reverse the request to do so in <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> and update it and its copies included in releases. In that update please also suggest another way to be specific in report. AFAIK, unless was able to perform (generally, very tedious) experimentation and figure a short test program, it is the only way to be specific. > One more note, 2.96 was never an official release. Perhaps should state that explicitly in future reports. Anyway, did include full name of the system binary package, so that anybody can identify the snapshot it is based on (and if no, avoid using systems from that vendor). As for binary packages based on official releases, neither observed it in `gcc-3.3.2-6mdk'. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28099
