On 4/19/23 11:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
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 ;)
Fair, though this is much more straightforward than that issue.
I might revert the previous patch in that case, though; a wrong-code
regression seems worse than an ICE.
-- 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
