https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 19 09:13:05 2014
New Revision: 218894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-12-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60955
* pt.c (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Dec 18 17:53:55 2014
New Revision: 218871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-12-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60955
* pt.c (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think you are right. Now I wonder if the comment means that for the next
release series, aka current mainline, we can seriously try to remove the whole
conditional...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> This is a regression. Manuel, are you going to pursue the issue further and
> send to the mailing list a complete patch?
I don't even remember the details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Erroneous warning about |[4.9/5 Regression]
|ta
