On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@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®rtesting > 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
