Thanks for the verification! Regards, Gareth Pearce
> > > On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:37 PM, Gareth Pearce wrote: > > > So I just started trying out gcc 4.1 - with a program which compiles > > and > > runs fine on gcc 3.3. > > > > Attached is a reduced testcase which shows runtime segfault due to > > stack > > overflow if compiled with 4.1 but does not with 3.3. Trivial work > > around is > > to move the specific declaration above the template definition. Now I > > see > > potential for this to be 'the way the standard wants it to be', but > > given I > > don't have a copy of the standard I am unsure. > > > > Should I report this as a bug or is it a standards compliance > > improvement? > > This is a standards compliance improvement as x is not dependent so the > function > call to recurse has to be looked up of the available functions at > decoration > time of the template function. > The easy way is to fix your code is to add: > int recurse(const sstring_t& blah); > before declaring the template version. > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski
