https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90792
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith <richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Related to the upstream ABI issue: > https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/38 I don't think so, except that they're both about the 'sr' mangling in general. These two issues seem to have been muddled up repeatedly on the issues you cited. ABI issue 38 is about whether we mangle the original syntax or some resolved form of it. This issue (and PR88413) is about whether an 'E' is required to terminate the nested-name-specifier in certain 'sr' productions. I think the two questions are independent, and the ABI is currently clear that the 'E' is required in the example in comment#0.
