From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 368733858034; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:11:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 368733858034
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/91292] Mangler incorrectly handles negative numbers in
 expressions
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:11:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-91292-4-awVWe5qNn9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-91292-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-91292-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:11:22 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D91292

--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And if -(1) is to be mangled the same as -1, then shouldn't

  template<typename T>
  typename std::enable_if<(int)sizeof(T) >=3D -(1), int>::type size1(T *t);

  template<typename T>
  typename std::enable_if<(int)sizeof(T) >=3D -1, int>::type size1(T *t);

be considered two declarations of the same function?  But IIUC that would
contradict [temp.over.link]p5, which says

  Two expressions involving template parameters are considered equivalent if
two function definitions containing the expressions would satisfy the
one-definition rule

but IIUC the one-definition rule fails here because -1 is not the same
(token-wise) as -(1).=