yes, current expected entry is wrong and Nick's patch corrects that. ./kamlesh
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 9:29 PM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@airs.com> wrote: > Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Hi Ian, > > > > The libiberty testsuite in the gcc mainline is currently failing on > > the last test: > > > > FAIL at line 1452, options : > > in: _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE > > out: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), > void>::type*) > > exp: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), > void>::type*) > > > > To me it looks like the expected demangling is incorrect - it wants a > > double set of parentheses around decltype(nullptr) when I think that > > only one is needed. So I would like to apply the patch below to fix > > this. > > > > Is this OK ? > > Looks like this problem was introduced by > > 2019-11-04 Kamlesh Kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com> > > * cp-demangle.c (d_expr_primary): Handle > nullptr demangling. > * testsuite/demangle-expected: Added test. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00064.html > > Kamlesh, Jason, can you confirm that Nick's change to the testsuite is > testing the expected demangling, and that the current entry in the > testsuite is incorrect? Thanks. > > Ian > > > > libiberty/ChangeLog > > 2020-01-20 Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com> > > > > * testsuite/demangle-expected: Fix expected demangling. > > > > Index: libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected > > =================================================================== > > --- libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected (revision 280157) > > +++ libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected (working copy) > > @@ -1449,4 +1449,4 @@ > > #PR91979 demangling nullptr expression > > > > _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE > > -void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), > void>::type*) > > +void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), > void>::type*) >
