On 06/21/2017 01:59 AM, Volker Reichelt wrote:
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?
I missed this and have been pinging your patch on your behalf
(below). In the interest on making progress on this, IMO trivial,
change I recommend taking Jason's comment as approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00472.html
Martin
