On 20 Jun, Jason Merrill wrote: > 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
Is 'makes sense' equivalent to 'OK for trunk' here? If so, should my patch go in before David's or should we do it the other way round? Regards, Volker
