http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 13:56:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > It seems to work just as well as the patch in comment #18 and is much simpler. > Also it could catch this sort of thing in other situations as well. So I would > say that it is preferable over the previous patches. > > Will test for regressions (but don't expect any). The patch in comment 21, like the previous ones in comment 14 and 18, is free of testsuite regressions.
