From patchwork Tue Sep 20 12:09:21 2011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Patchwork-Submitter: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
X-Patchwork-Id: 115513
Return-Path: 
 <gcc-patches-return-302248-incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org>
X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org
Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org
Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AEA7FB71D7
	for <incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org>;
	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:10:32 +1000 (EST)
Received: (qmail 7890 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2011 12:10:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 7878 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2011 12:10:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL, BAYES_00,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp204.alice.it (HELO smtp204.alice.it) (82.57.200.100) by
	sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP;
	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:10:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (79.53.82.102) by smtp204.alice.it (8.5.124.08)
	id 4E259C1B050E0F7F; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4E788271.7030009@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:09:21 +0200
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110907 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
CC: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: [C++ Patch] PR 50454
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: 
 <mailto:gcc-patches-unsubscribe-incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org

Hi,

as I tried to analyze/explain in the audit trail, apparently we are 
doing something bogus in grokdeclarator wrt unsigned __int128, which 
leads to the latter being wrongly rejected with -pedantic-errors, at 
variance with plain __int128 or __int128_t / __uint128_t for that 
matter. Thus I prepared the below. Tested x86_64-linux.

Ok for mainline?

Thanks,
Paolo.

/////////////////////
/cp
2011-09-20  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	PR c++/50454
	* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Don't reject unsigned __int128 with
	-pedantic-errors.

/testsuite
2011-09-20  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	PR c++/50454
	* g++.dg/ext/int128-1.C: New.

Index: testsuite/g++.dg/ext/int128-1.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/ext/int128-1.C	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/ext/int128-1.C	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// PR c++/50454
+// { dg-do compile { target int128 } }
+
+template<typename T>
+  struct limits;
+
+template<>
+  struct limits<__int128> { };
+
+template<>
+  struct limits<unsigned __int128> { };
Index: cp/decl.c
===================================================================
--- cp/decl.c	(revision 179004)
+++ cp/decl.c	(working copy)
@@ -8695,22 +8695,6 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
 	      if (flag_pedantic_errors)
 		ok = 0;
 	    }
-	  if (explicit_int128)
-	    {
-	      if (int128_integer_type_node == NULL_TREE)
-	        {
-		  error ("%<__int128%> is not supported by this target");
-		  ok = 0;
-	        }
-	      else if (pedantic)
-		{
-		  pedwarn (input_location, OPT_pedantic,
-			   "ISO C++ does not support %<__int128%> for %qs",
-			   name);
-		  if (flag_pedantic_errors)
-		    ok = 0;
-		}
-	    }
 	}
 
       /* Discard the type modifiers if they are invalid.  */