http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55449
--- Comment #10 from Gaetano Mendola <mendola at gmail dot com> 2012-11-24 17:49:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > (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. Well, I have to admit that was a poor and over reacted reply from my side, but as you spent your time to investigate the issue I have spent my time to understand why it was happening and some hours, no kidding, to shrink it as much I could to create the test case I have submitted, as you can see that code is useful to nothing. I was frustrated to see a short "it work/fixed in current release" after having work half noon to submit it, the fast it was working with a new gcc release was an information I already knew it, I'd expect something on the line: "o yes, it was an old bug we have already corrected", that's why I have submitted the bug not to drive someone else trying the same I did. As you can see from my first post I have tried to shrink more than that, and each piece I was removing was then making the test "passing". > 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. I'm not happy to complain, why would I? I'm happy when stuff works and when a submitted bug was a real bug helping to improve gcc quality. When I submitted it, for me the bug report was not incomplete otherwise I wouldn't have submitted it, I did follow the guide and the only piece missing, my fault, was the output of g++ -v -save-temps because I forgot to redirect the output to a file. I would have provided it immediately if you would have pointed it out earlier. > 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 Thank you for it. May I say now then: "time to upgrade gcc" ? I'm sorry it was not my intention to hurt anyone.
