It indeed looks like a typo. But I wonder, what effect, if any, it had, given it probably has been there for very long. Could the fix break something.
Do we have a bug that results from this typo (preferably with a small example to show it)?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is definitely something that should be fixed; please also report the others. I'm just worried about breaking something that essentially worked by accident.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
On second look, the patch only fixes an error message used in case of internal compiler errors, so there is no risk of breaking anything, and it obviously fixes a bug.
Applied in [r11422].
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
On second look, the patch only fixes an error message used in case of internal compiler errors, so there is no risk of breaking anything, and it obviously fixes a bug.
Applied in [r11422].
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It indeed looks like a typo. But I wonder, what effect, if any, it had, given it probably has been there for very long. Could the fix break something.
Do we have a bug that results from this typo (preferably with a small example to show it)?
This is definitely something that should be fixed; please also report the others. I'm just worried about breaking something that essentially worked by accident.
On second look, the patch only fixes an error message used in case of internal compiler errors, so there is no risk of breaking anything, and it obviously fixes a bug.
Applied in [r11422].
On second look, the patch only fixes an error message used in case of internal compiler errors, so there is no risk of breaking anything, and it obviously fixes a bug.
Applied in [r11422].