More test results...

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

>> No, but the patch under discussion changes several static data members to
>> be inherited, so the mangled name is different.  If the default is wrong
>> for a type, it must be overridden in the (derived) specialization, so the
>> mangled name depends on whether or not the default is correct.

> Hmm. Well, numeric_limits only has meaning as a specialization. For the
> required specializations, no derivation is required. It stands to reason
> that non-required, user-defined specializations would also not be
> derivations.

True.  But if it only has meaning as a specialization, why was the change
useful in the first place?

> The idea that now __numeric_limits_base* is in the exported symbols list 
> is the bit that personally makes me nervous. I thought this was the part 
> that you were nervous about.

I was concerned about changing the mangled name of, say,

  std::numeric_limits<std::string>::is_integer

Jason