[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-10-06 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a Author: Patrick Palka D

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-27 Thread ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka --- I see, thanks very much for that insightful explanation.

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-24 Thread richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #7 from Richard Smith --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3) > Hmm, but according to > http://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangling.literal the > mangling of a negative integer literal is prefixed with "n", The

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-24 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34947d4e97ee72b26491cfe5ff4fa8258fadbe95 commit r12-3882-g34947d4e97ee72b26491cfe5ff4fa8258fadbe95 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Fr

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-24 Thread ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-24 Thread ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- And if -(1) is to be mangled the same as -1, then shouldn't template typename std::enable_if<(int)sizeof(T) >= -(1), int>::type size1(T *t); template typename std::enable_if<(int)sizeof(T) >= -1, in

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2021-09-24 Thread ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2019-07-30 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in expressions

2019-07-30 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oops, sorry, those mangled names are actually for this further reduced code: template struct enable_if { }; template struct enable_if { using type = T; }; template typename enable_if<(int)sizeof(T) >= -(1