On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > > -- >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
--
BR,
Hongtao
