------- Comment #5 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 14:07 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I doubt this is a duplicate of Bug 22456 because the code there is dead. > It looks more like Bug 30542 and Bug 30575 which both are mentioned in Bug > 22456. These do not look like duplicates of Bug 22456 either because the code > there is not dead.
It's exactly the same as Bug 30542 and Bug 30575. I'd guess it is really a duplicate of Bug 22456, and the "dead" code is indeed dead but not in the sense we think it is. A single comment from gcc developers would clarify it, something like "We are indeed aware of this serious bug and #22456 is just an umbreall bug which happened to have bogus test case" or "No, it's not a serious bug, and the code there and here is the same". Or something. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
