http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55059
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2013-01-31
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-31
17:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I believe the patch was trying to avoid treating a partial definition as a
> full
> definition when there's a full definition of the class in another CU. If
> there's only the partial definition, the best we can do is to use that.
I was wrong; the patch was just trying to avoid pretending that a partial
definition is a full definition. Which would be fine except that GCC is being
too aggressive about pruning class members.
