On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 04:48, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:57:49 -0700 > > From: Thomas Rodgers via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:32 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > All the actual code changes look good. > > Unfortunately, this overwrote the fix for PR108672. I take > it there's a step missing from the synchronization process; > a check that no local commits are overwritten? Sounds like > something that can be fully scripted (not volunteering) or > already available (like, "list all commits affecting > contents touched by/between two named commits"). > > I did *not* check whether any other local commits were also > overwritten. Also, not sure about whether better try to get > this upstreamed: __INT32_TYPE__ seems gcc-specific.
Clang does support it too, but I agree that upstream might not want that change. > Anyway, r13-5702-g72058eea9d407e was "re-committed" per > below as obvious after regtesting cris-elf. Thanks. I'll add an include/pstl/LOCAL_PATCHES file listed the commits we apply locally after importing the upstream sources. Based on git history, the initial list of commits is: r9-6908-g0360f9ad4048ea r9-6942-g9eda9f9231f287 r9-7071-ga34d6343a758f6 r10-572-g34d878c7bc86d4 r10-1314-g32bab8b6ad0a90 r11-7339-g7e647d71d556b7 r12-7699-gac73c944eac88f r13-3708-ge3b10249119fb4 r13-5702-g72058eea9d407e But several of those have been incorporated upstream, or were reapplied correctly to our downstream copies. We'll go through the list and find which ones need to stay there. It looks like r10-1314-g32bab8b6ad0a90 was lost and should be re-applied.
