https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
I wouldn't do that, in particular not now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Do you think it's OK to pop this into 4.9 too even though it's slushy?
Do I need to ask any one in particular - or is it obvious?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Sat Jul 12 01:41:30 2014
New Revision: 212477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-11 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And with the released 4.9.0 too. We should add the testcase and close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks related to PR 57573
