https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> Thanks for the background and the pointer. Is this report then a duplicate
> of bug 43486?
It may be possible to fix this one imperfectly without fixing PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the background and the pointer. Is this report then a duplicate of
bug 43486?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I thought I'd look into this bug since it affects the testing of my patch
> for bug 49905 and I'm finding out that it seems to be a general problem with
> C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I thought I'd look into this bug since it affects the testing of my patch for
bug 49905 and I'm finding out that it seems to be a general problem with C++
and function arguments. From what I can see, the C fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at blino dot org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
