On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 11:30:24AM +0800, haochen.jiang via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> On Linux/x86_64,
> >>
> >> 03cebd304955a6b9c5607e09312d77f1307cc98e is the first bad commit
> >> commit 03cebd304955a6b9c5607e09312d77f1307cc98e
> >> Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
> >> Date:   Tue Apr 18 21:32:07 2023 -0400
> >>
> >>     c++: fix 'unsigned typedef-name' extension [PR108099]
> >>
> >> caused
> >>
> >> FAIL: std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc execution test
> >
> > That is mentioned in
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/616439.html
> > as known problem.  I think the test should use std::make_signed<rep_t>
> > instead of signed rep_t

IIUC we can't portably use make_signed here since __int128 is considered
an integral type only in GNU mode and not in strict mode.

> 
> It's already testing non-public implementation details, it could just use #if and use signed __int128 or signed long long as appropriate.

Sounds good, patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/616598.html