On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/18/2013 10:03 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup was removed in r158622: > > > > 2010-04-21 Jan Hubicka <j...@suse.cz> > > [...snip...] > > * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Remove pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup. > > > > but that commit left the declaration still present in tree-pass.h > > > > This patch removes the redundant decl. > > > > Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > This is fine. Thanks.
Thanks; committed to svn trunk as r201035. > > OK for trunk? [this one seems obvious to me, but doesn't quite match > > the letter of the rules in "Free for all" in > > http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html , and I'm new here, hence I'm asking > > out of an abundance of caution :) ] > Yea. The steering committee is likely to revamp the wording to make > this kind of obvious fix OK in the future. One other thing that's unclear on that page: are there any recommendations on what the commit message should be? In the example ("Commit the changes to the central repository") you appear to have trimmed the top line containing date and name from the ChangeLog entry, and I've (mostly) emulated that in my commits, but looking at "svn log" there seems to be some variety in what people do. Presumably the log message should contain the ChangeLog fragment(s), with multiple ChangeLogs indicated by path. Is it OK to have extra info? When I've been using git in my own local branches I've preferred to also put a one-line summary at the top of the commit above the ChangeLog fragment(s), since it makes for more readable entries in the git log. For more complicated changes, I also like to place some higher-level information about the change near the top of the logs (though I wouldn't want to impose that requirement on other devs). Perhaps also a URL to relevant discussions on the gcc-patches archive would also be appropriate? (and again optional, to avoid adding to the red tape). [to repeat my rant from Cauldron, you wouldn't write code comments like this: /* Double x. */ x *= 2; but if it warrants a comment, you'd have something like: /* Increase the buffer size, whilst avoiding O(n^2) copying costs on repeated growth. */ x *= 2; or somesuch - comments should describe the *intent* of change, rather than merely an English description. Why do GNU ChangeLogs seems to favor the latter approach?] (Sorry if the above turned into a rant again) Dave
