Greg Kochanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which seems like an acceptable error message. Unfortunately, it is
rather likely that this gets fixed in 3.3, too.
How about this variant that defines inverse() ?
[...]
Hmm. This seems like valid code, but g++ 3.3 still rejects it.
However, this is
Why is the test case important?
I think (though I may be wrong) that
you're missing the main point of the bug report.
The main point is simply that the error message is
uninformative. Nearly useless.
Whatever the compiler *thought* it was parsing is
hidden, and that's the problem -- it provides
OK. I'll spend an hour or so boiling down a test case.
Falk Hueffner wrote:
I can see that. However without a test case it is not clear to me
whether, or how, g++ could have done better. So I need a test case
plus an example error message that you would have liked to see.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
tags 292961 + upstream
tags 292961 + fixed-upstream
retitle 292961 [fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3: vastly uninformative error message
thanks
Greg Kochanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Here is a condensed version.
$ g++ -c bug.c
bug.c: In function `void c_area(const xform_split, const box, const
4 matches
Mail list logo
