Hi,
On 13/04/2016 17:27, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/13/2016 11:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
As it happens, anyway, the below exceedingly trivial patch avoids the
ICE in resolve_typename_type and appears to pass testing (is already
past g++.dg/tm/tm.exp...). Should I apply it instead together with the
amended testcase? Weird that nobody noticed the pair of typos before!?!
OK.
Leaving alone gcc-4_9-branch, I was considering backporting to
gcc-5-branch and closing the bug. What do you think?
Thanks,
Paolo.
