http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55449
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-24
14:21:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Jonathan, I have nothing against you personaly, what you wrote is:
>
> "GCC 4.4 is no longer supported, and the problem *seems* to be already fixed
> in
> current releases."
>
> and doesn't exactly show that you have investigate, I have also stated that
> with 4.7.3 works.
I investigated and couldn't find anything conclusive, so I said "seems" because
I wasn't certain.
If you assume I didn't investigate and reply with "time to adopt ICC" then feel
free to do so, I don't volunteer my time to GCC for people with that attitude.
> Actualy the code I have submitted was tailored already I couldn't shrink more
> than I did. To be honest with the real code instead to have a "pure virtual
> call" I had a simple core with gdb finding bogus data in the core, that was
> the
> smallest test I was able to make it reproducible.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/minimize.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
> About the fact I didn't post the g++ -v output you are right, I have issued
> the
> command "g++ -v -save-temps ..." but somehow the output get lost in the
> archive
> attached. If you are interested in the output I will provide it.
I'm not interested, the point is you provided an incomplete bug report but are
then happy to complain about the effort put in by people who look at it.
The bug was fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg00115.html so is
fixed in 4.5.0 and later
