https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #6)
> I attached the original bug report only to help better understand the bug.
> If you do not need the original bug reports, I will not report the original
> bug reports any more. I will report only the code and the differences.
I didn't say don't link to the original report!
I am complaining that you make claims about the behaviour of gcc or clang which
are completely wrong.
Look at the evidence:
You created this bug with the title "g++ segfaults when compiling template
member function that calls destructor"
WRONG, g++ prints "error: no matching function for call to ..." and does not
segfault.
You said "A previous version of clang++ produces similar error messages"
WRONG, clang produces a segfault. That's not similar.
This is what I said in comment 1 above, and you're responding by disagreeing,
asking what version I have, and suggesting that I said we don't want links to
the Clang bug report. That's not what I said!
If you can't understand my requests for better quality bug reports then I will
disable your account until you can demonstrate that you understand and are
willing to write better bug reports.
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #7)
> Indeed, the differences may be either relevant or irrelevant to the original
> bug reports. Sometimes, it can be confusing, if they are irrelevant.
Yes, and YOU are causing this confusion. It is fine to link to the original
clang report, to say where the code comes from. It is also fine to describe the
results for compiling with clang.
But that's not what you are doing! You are making confusing and wrong claims
about the results from g++ (e.g. "g++ segfaults") and the results from clang
("produces similar error messages").
Please be more careful and describe the problems more accurately.
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #8)
> Never the less, the differences exist in the recent versions of gcc and
> clang.
Yes (and I already said in comment 2 that this is a bug in GCC). But I have to
spend hours trying to see if you are reporting real problems or just nonsense
because you are confused. Please be more careful and describe the problems more
accurately.
It is unhelpful to claim that g++ segfaults or clang produces similar errors to
g++, if in fact the behaviour is completely different.
