------- Comment #20 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 12:52 ------- (In reply to comment #19) > Since comment #13 is fixed, this should not be labeled a regression any more I > guess. Are there still problems with comment #12 (apart from PR35810), or can > we close this PR?
I think only PR 35971, comment 0 (with modification of PR 35971 comment 2) and [essentially/exactly the same] comment 12 of this PR remain (= compiles, but ICE at run time). I don't see ad hoc whether PR 35810 is the problem; if you close this PR, can you add a note to the PR that one should re-check PR 35971, comment 0 and PR 36463, comment 12 before closing? That way we are sure that the test case does not get lost, if PR 35810 does not fix the remaining issues. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36463
