Re: [PING] C++ Re: [PATCH] C/C++: fix quoting of "aka" typedef information (PR 62170)

[Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@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&regrtesting
> 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