Ok, thanks.
Jonathan Wakely 于2020年5月22日 周五14:21写道：
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 06:54, Haoxin Tu via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi, there!
> >
> > I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is
> wrong.
>
> You're using the wrong mailing list, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html which
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 06:54, Haoxin Tu via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi, there!
>
> I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is wrong.
You're using the wrong mailing list, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html which says this question should be on
the gcc-help list. Please send any rep
On 5/22/20 6:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
so perhaps it just misses gcc/testsuite/go.test/test ?
Hello.
I've just added the location to ignored locations.
Or what exact files you've changed in your script?
@Ian: Please send us patch with git format-patch.
@Jakub: Can you please sync up the
Hi, there!
I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is wrong.
I have some issues about how GCC deal with the different optimizations in a
UB program.
For example,
small.cc
*#include unsigned long long a;void b(unsigned long long *c, int
h) { *c = h; }int d = 0;in
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:21PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> Hi, this unfortunately breaks gccgo development. Significant parts of
> the gccgo sources are simply copied from other repositories. Those
> other repositories do not use ChangeLog files. The git commit hook
> should not
Snapshot gcc-8-20200521 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200521/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:26 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> We've just installed server git hooks that verify git messages
> for a correct ChangeLog format. For a limited time period, please
> still apply ChangeLog changes to the corresponding ChangeLog files.
> We'll use it for comparison of auto-gen
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:39 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/15/20 3:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:12:27PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> On 5/15/20 2:42 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>> I actually use mklog -i all the time. But I can work around it if it
> >>> disapp
On 5/21/20 11:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Why? What is the use of requiring ChangeLog entries at all for these changes?
I must confirm a common test-suite ChangeLog entry is something like:
$ grep ':' gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | sed 's/.*://' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n |
tac | head -n 15
63
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:27 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/21/20 9:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Modified. Adjustments to expected errors in testcases don't seem to me
> worth documenting in a ChangeLog.
>
> I see. As Jakub mentioned, I would keep the hook stricter for now.
>
Why? What is th
Hi, all.
GCC have a extensive testsuite, that is no news at all. However they are
focused on the compiler (cc1*) or in libraries, and I can't find tests
related to the GCC driver.
Are there tests to the GCC driver? If yes, is there any docs about how
to write them?
Thank you,
Giuliano.
On 5/21/20 9:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Modified. Adjustments to expected errors in testcases don't seem to me worth
documenting in a ChangeLog.
I see. As Jakub mentioned, I would keep the hook stricter for now.
Martin
Hello Tony,
On Wed, May 20 2020, y2s1982 . wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:32 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
>> Hello Tony,
>>
>> sorry for not getting back to you last week. Time seems to fly even
>> faster now that I'm forced to work from home :-/ Furthermore, both me
>> and Ja
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:58 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/21/20 8:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Was there a decision somewhere to require ChangeLog entries for all
> testcase changes now, as the hook is enforcing? They were optional before.
>
> Right now we ignore newly added test-case, these
On 5/21/20 8:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Was there a decision somewhere to require ChangeLog entries for all testcase
changes now, as the hook is enforcing? They were optional before.
Right now we ignore newly added test-case, these don't have to be mentioned.
Can you please attach the patch
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:52:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Was there a decision somewhere to require ChangeLog entries for all
> testcase changes now, as the hook is enforcing? They were optional before.
>
> remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
> remote: ERR: changed file not mentioned in a
Was there a decision somewhere to require ChangeLog entries for all
testcase changes now, as the hook is enforcing? They were optional before.
remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
remote: ERR: changed file not mentioned in a
ChangeLog:"gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error33.C"
On Thu, May 21, 2020 a
Hi Andreas,
git is not doing a plain patch, it is doing a merge. It is not unusual
for a merge to have changes that are already present on both sides.
... which just goes to show that it is very easy to make a fool of
yourself with git if you have no mental model of what it does.
That's not n
Hi Martin,
>> two comments:
>>
>> * Can you please avoid the use grey highlighting in that section? Black
>>script on a grey background is already hard to read for someone with
>>reasonable vision. I suspect it will be much harder for
>>vision-impaired people.
>
> You are right, I fi
On 5/21/20 5:14 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
We've just installed server git hooks that verify git messages
for a correct ChangeLog format. For a limited time period, please
still apply ChangeLog changes to the corresponding ChangeLog files.
We'll use it for comparison of auto-generated Ca
Hi Martin,
> We've just installed server git hooks that verify git messages
> for a correct ChangeLog format. For a limited time period, please
> still apply ChangeLog changes to the corresponding ChangeLog files.
> We'll use it for comparison of auto-generated CangeLog entries.
>
> The format is
On Mai 21 2020, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Obviously, reverting the already applied patch was a no-op.
Obviously not, since the first revert was partial only.
> I would assume that git noticed that, and could issue a message
> like "applying diff to foo.c failed". patch(1) manages it.
git is not do
Am 21.05.20 um 13:05 schrieb Andreas Schwab:
On Mai 21 2020, Thomas Koenig wrote:
An error message or warning from git might have been nice, though.
How can it know?
Obviously, reverting the already applied patch was a no-op.
I would assume that git noticed that, and could issue a message
l
On Mai 21 2020, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> An error message or warning from git might have been nice, though.
How can it know?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
Am 21.05.20 um 11:45 schrieb Andreas Schwab:
On Mai 21 2020, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
$ git revert r9-8541-g2a732dbdfcc0a3bc2b4bdb5387fffa193fea6df6
on origin/releases/gcc-9, and now only the ChangeLog entries reversed
(which is not wanted), but the code is unchanged (which is even
less wa
On Mai 21 2020, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> $ git revert r9-8541-g2a732dbdfcc0a3bc2b4bdb5387fffa193fea6df6
>
> on origin/releases/gcc-9, and now only the ChangeLog entries reversed
> (which is not wanted), but the code is unchanged (which is even
> less wanted).
You are trying to revert a comm
What is the current established way of reverting a patch, with
the current state of the tools?
I did
$ git revert r9-8541-g2a732dbdfcc0a3bc2b4bdb5387fffa193fea6df6
on origin/releases/gcc-9, and now only the ChangeLog entries reversed
(which is not wanted), but the code is unchanged (which is ev
Hello Martin.
Can you please compare the current mklog.py. Is there anything
you miss compared to your current script?
Thanks,
Martin
28 matches
Mail list logo
