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.

Reply via email to