This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PING] C++ Re: [PATCH] C/C++: fix quoting of "aka" typedef information (PR 62170)


On 20 Jun, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what the issue alluded to with negative
>> obstack_blank is, but I chose to follow the above docs and use
>> obstack_blank_fast; am testing an updated patch in which the above line
>> now looks like:
>>
>>           obstack_blank_fast (ob, -(type_start + type_len));
>>
>> Is the patch OK with that change? (assuming bootstrap&regrtesting
>> pass), or should I re-post?
> 
> OK with that change.
> 
>> On a related matter, this patch conflicts with Volker's patch here:
>>
>>   https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01576.html
>>
>> in which he removes the trailing "{enum}" info (and hence all of our
>> changes to the testsuite conflict between the two patches...)
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts on that other patch? [Ccing Volker]
> 
> That patch makes sense to me; I prefer "enum E" to "E {enum}".
> 
> Jason

Is 'makes sense' equivalent to 'OK for trunk' here? If so, should my
patch go in before David's or should we do it the other way round?

Regards,
Volker


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]