Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 4 February 2018 at 05:01, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-02-03 13:35, Manfred wrote:
>> n4659 17.4 (Type equivalence) p1.3:
>>
>> Two template-ids refer to the same class, function, or variable if
>> ...
>> their corresponding non-type template arguments of integral or
>> enumeration type have identical values
>> ...
>>
>> It looks that for non-type template arguments the template type
>> equivalence is based on argument /value/ not /type/ (and value), so
>> IMHO gcc is correct where it considers foo<10u> and foo<10> to be the
>> same type, i.e. "refer to the same class"
>>
>> FWIW, type_info reports the same class name for both templates, which
>> appears to be correct as per the above.
>>
>> I would think someone from gcc might be more specific on why both
>> templates print 4294967286, and what debug info is actually stored by
>> -g in this case.
>
> I think that Roman's example clearly shows that they are not equivalent in
> all cases.
>
> Building Roman's example with g++ 7.3 results in a single instantiated type.  You
> can see that both "new foo<10>()" and "new foo<10u>()" end up calling the same
> constructor.  It seems like which type is instantiated depends on which template
> parameter (the signed or unsigned one) you use first.  So with this:
>
>      base * fi = new foo<10>();
>      base * fu = new foo<10u>();
>
> the output is -10 for both, and with
>
>      base * fu = new foo<10u>();
>      base * fi = new foo<10>();
>
> the output is 4294967286 for both.  But it's probably a bogus behavior.  I tested
> with clangd, it instantiates two different types, so you get 4294967286 for the
> <10u> case and -10 for the <10> case.  I also just built gcc from master, and it
> also instantiates two types, so it seems like that was fixed recently.

That was https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79092 FWIW