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

[Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>]

On 06/21/2017 01:59 AM, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> On 20 Jun, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> 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
>
> Is 'makes sense' equivalent to 'OK for trunk' here? If so, should my
> patch go in before David's or should we do it the other way round?

I missed this and have been pinging your patch on your behalf
(below).  In the interest on making progress on this, IMO trivial,
change I recommend taking Jason's comment as approval.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00472.html

Martin