On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 05:34:30PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> I'm having a problem with GCC 2.95.3 that appears to be a compiler
> >> bug.
The handling of overloads with respect to const and non-const modifiers
on pointers was badly broken in gcc 2.95.3. That compiler accepted
so much crud t
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GCC 2.95.3 bug
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Balogh, Ray wrote:
>> Dear GCC folks:
>>
>> I'm having a problem with GCC 2.95.3 that appears to be a compiler
>> bug. It seems to be optimizing out inlined function code with side
>> effects, and
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Balogh, Ray wrote:
>> Dear GCC folks:
>>
>> I'm having a problem with GCC 2.95.3 that appears to be a compiler
>> bug. It seems to be optimizing out inlined function code with side
>> effects, and is related to binding a non-const pointer to a const
>> pointer reference fun
Balogh, Ray wrote:
Dear GCC folks:
I'm having a problem with GCC 2.95.3 that appears to be a compiler bug. It
seems to be optimizing out inlined function code with side effects, and is
related to binding a non-const pointer to a const pointer reference function
parameter. The problem only h
Dear GCC folks:
I'm having a problem with GCC 2.95.3 that appears to be a compiler bug. It
seems to be optimizing out inlined function code with side effects, and is
related to binding a non-const pointer to a const pointer reference function
parameter. The problem only happens with optimizat
