On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Marek pointed out elsewhere that the first testcase should have
>
> // { dg-additional-options -g }
>
> OK for 13 with that change?
OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On 4/27/22 19:48, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/27/22 13:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ if (typedef_variant_p (type))
+ {
+ /* Set up the typedef all over again. */
This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another
On 4/27/22 13:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ if (typedef_variant_p (type))
+ {
+ /* Set up the typedef all over again. */
This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another
declaration with the mode attribut
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> + if (typedef_variant_p (type))
> + {
> + /* Set up the typedef all over again. */
This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another
declaration with the mode attribute, as opposed to being defined using th
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:19:57AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The problem here was that handle_mode_attribute clobbered the changes of any
> previous attribute, only copying type qualifiers to the new type. And
> common_handle_aligned_attribute had previously set up the typedef,
