Hi Jonathan, On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 06:11:18PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 12/05/25 17:53 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Suggested-by: Xavier Del Campo Romero <xavi....@tutanota.com> > > Co-authored-by: Martin Uecker <uec...@tugraz.at> > > Acked-by: "James K. Lowden" <jklow...@schemamania.org> > > What does this Acked-by: indicate?
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by> Acked-by: may also be used by other stakeholders, such as people with domain knowledge (e.g. the original author of the code being modified), userspace-side reviewers for a kernel uAPI patch or key users of a feature. [...] Acked-by: is also less formal than Reviewed-by:. For instance, maintainers may use it to signify that they are OK with a patch landing, but they may not have reviewed it as thoroughly as if a Reviewed-by: was provided. Similarly, a key user may not have carried out a technical review of the patch, yet they may be satisfied with the general approach, the feature or the user-facing interface. > My guess would be that it indicates approval for the patch, but Jim is > not an approver for the C front end, so he can't approve this patch. That would be a Reviewed-by:. Acked-by: can be used by a reviewer when they like the patch but haven't reviewed as seriously as a Reviewed-by: tag would imply. It can also be used --like in this case-- for when someone who can't approve it, still wants to express approval. > Does Acked-by: indicate something other than approval? There are degrees of approval. The formal one would be Reviewed-by:. The informal one would be Acked-by:. > When it's > somebody who can't approve the patch, how is it different to > Reviewed-by:? Someone who can't aapprove the patch wouldn't usually emit a Reviewed-by:. Unless they feel so strongly qualified as an exception to review the patch (e.g., if you review a patch for the man pages about _Atomic, you could say you've Reviewed-by, because even when you don't have commit rights, I'm going to trust your review more than my own). > I'm not overjoyed by the idea of trailers that mean something in some > other project (e.g. the kernel) but are just co-opted to mean > something slightly (or completely) different in the GCC repo without > some kind of agreement from the community about what they mean *here*. I use them with the exact meaning of <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by>. I would encourage using them. They convey useful information. Have a lovely night! Alex > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> > > --- > > gcc/c-family/c-common.cc | 26 +++++ > > gcc/c-family/c-common.def | 3 + > > gcc/c-family/c-common.h | 2 + > > gcc/c/c-decl.cc | 22 +++- > > gcc/c/c-parser.cc | 59 +++++++--- > > gcc/c/c-tree.h | 4 + > > gcc/c/c-typeck.cc | 115 +++++++++++++++++- > > gcc/doc/extend.texi | 30 +++++ > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-compile.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-vla.c | 51 ++++++++ > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof.c | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 11 files changed, 572 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-compile.c > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-vla.c > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof.c > > > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
