On 18.06.21 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 12:05, Tobias Burnus wrote:
PR c++/12394 - internal compiler error: in write_type, at cp/mangle.c:1517
PR fortran/100123 - -ftree-fre gives incorrect result in subroutine with array
declared as length 1
PR c++/12394
PR fortran/100123
Now that we put these PR cmpt/nnnn lines before the xxx/ChangeLog
entries, is there any reason to indent them with a TAB?
My understanding with the PR before vs. after the xxx/ChangeLog is
that if you put them before, they apply to all changelog entries
and if you put them afterward, it only only applies to the those
ChangeLog files for which they have been mentioned.
(But I also might have misread the code/were misguided by the
var names.)
And when manually creating the changelog from scratch, they still
often end up after the ChangeLog line.
But otherwise, I am not attached to the tab. Just one thing:
It might be slightly inconsistent to require the tab after the
xxx/ChangeLog line but not before that line. And I think a
tab should be used after the xxx/ChangeLog line.
If we didn't require the TAB before them, then the lines added by -p
would serve the same purpose, and we wouldn't need to repeat them
So instead of requiring "^\tPR .*/\d+$" for the PR entry, require
"^\t?PR ([^/]+)/\d+"
I think we should require either ($|\s) after the PR number but
otherwise, it works for me.
I am sure that Martin Sebor will like this change as he currently
writes changelogs (see in this thread or) like the following one.
In that sense, there would be a precedent in terms of actual usage.
----------
Teach compute_objsize about placement new [PR100876].
Resolves:
PR c++/100876 - -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand placement new when
it's not inlined
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c++/100876
----------
Tobias
PS: My feeling is that you like the proposed mklog patch :-)
-----------------
Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstrasse 201, 80634 München
Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank
Thürauf
