On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
>> > <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via
>> > > Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > > > Committed as obvious.
>> > > >
>> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I
>> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we?
>> > > >
>> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better?
>> > >
>> > > x86_field_alignment uses
>> > >
>> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> "
>> > > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}",
>> > >
>> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual
>> > > to me.
>> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable.
>> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Author: liuhongt <hongtao....@intel.com>
>> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800
>>
>> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC
>> V13 to GCC 13.1.
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype,
>> const_tree totype)
>> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode
>> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode))
>> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> "
>> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
>> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of "
>> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; "
>> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>> }
>
>
>
> Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 without
> the %< decoration?
I'll just remove that.
>
>
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > > -- >8 --
>> > > >
>> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
>> > > >
>> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar.
>> > > > ---
>> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +-
>> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644
>> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype,
>> > > > const_tree totype)
>> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> "
>> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
>> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; "
>> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>> > > > }
>> > > >
>> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */
>> > > > --
>> > > > 2.41.0
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Marek
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > BR,
>> > Hongtao
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BR,
>> Hongtao
--
BR,
Hongtao
