On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:20:09AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> When I was backporting the earlier 108099 patch I finally saw your comments on
> the PR about the meaning of this pattern with the patch being wrong (and a
> regression from 11). This fixes that regression; fixing the broader issues
> can
> wait.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for 13.1 or wait for 13.2?
I'd wait for 13.2. We've been burned with trying to rush stuff out at the
last minute once this week already ;)
> -- 8< --
> My earlier patch for 108099 made us accept this non-standard pattern but
> messed up the semantics, so that e.g. unsigned __int128_t was not a 128-bit
> type.
>
> PR c++/108099
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * decl.cc (grokdeclarator): Keep typedef_decl for __int128_t.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/ext/int128-8.C: New test.
Jakub
