On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool < seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > PR target/92140: clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb > > > PR fortran/91926: assumed rank optional > > > PR tree-optimization/91532: [SVE] Redundant predicated store in > gcc.target/aarch64/fmla_2.c > > > PR tree-optimization/92161: ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at > tree-vect-stmts.c:1687 > > > PR tree-optimization/92162: ICE in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction, > at tree-vect-loop.c:4252 > > > PR c++/92015: internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_array_reference, at > cp/constexpr.c:2568 > > > PR tree-optimization/92173: ICE in optab_for_tree_code, at > optabs-tree.c:81 > > > PR tree-optimization/92173: ICE in optab_for_tree_code, at > optabs-tree.c:81 > > > PR fortran/92174: runtime error: index 15 out of bounds for type > 'gfc_expr *[15] > > > > > > Most of these aren't helpful at all, and none of these are good commit > > > summaries. The PR92173 one actually has identical commit messages btw, > > > huh. Ah, the second one (r277288) has the wrong changelog, but in the > > > actual changelog file as well, not something any tool could fix up (or > > > have we reached the singularity?) > > > > Identical commits are normally from where the same commit is made to > > multiple branches. It's not uncommon to see this when bugs are fixed. > > This is an actual mistake. The commits are not identical at all, just > the commit messages are (and the changelog entries, too). Not something > that happens to ften, but of course I hit it in the first random thing I > pick :-) > > > Ultimately the question here is whether something like the above is more > > or less useful than what we have today, which is summary lines of the > form: > > > > <date> <user> <email> > > I already said I would prefer things like > Patch related to PR323 > as the patch subject lines. No one argues that the current state of > affairs is good. I argue that replacing this with often wrong and > irrelevant information isn't the best we can do. > How about using the first line that isn't a ChangeLog date/author line, without trying to rewrite/augment it? Jason
