https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-11 00:00:00 |2021-8-11
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 13:38 ---
I am all for making parser errors more accurate but I honestly think we should
close this as WONTFIX because this particular testcase is a waste of time. I
don't think automatic reduction is possible since small changes
--- Comment #7 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2008-01-25 22:35 ---
Yes, it has always been understood that this code is invalid. The report is
about the quality of the diagnostic that was given, not whether a diagnostic
should be given. The diagnostics (three of them for one error) ref
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 21:11 ---
g++-4.3 opx.cpp -S 2>&1 | head -20
opx.cpp:9132: error: ISO C++ says that these are ambiguous, even though the
worst conversion for the first is better than the worst conversion for the
second:
opx.cpp:9132: note: ca
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 20:28 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
> tools?
last time I tried, it was just bogus and right now I don't have time to deal
with it as I am way busy wi
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 08:28 ---
Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
tools?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478
