On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 at 17:27, Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@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 <ja...@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.
Right (for now ... C++23 means we can make it an integer type, and I think we might as well apply that to all -std modes, but that work isn't done yet). > > > > > 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
