Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

Hi. The missing sanitizer reports about violations of function signatures for indirect calls, like: $ cat sanitize-function.cpp #include void f() {} void (*fnpointer) (int); void save () { fnpointer = reinterpret_cast(reinterpret_cast(f)); } int main(void) { save (); fnpointer (32); }

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On 1/14/20 12:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:36:11PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: The missing sanitizer reports about violations of function signatures for indirect calls, like: $ cat sanitize-function.cpp #include void f() {} void (*fnpointer) (int); void save

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On 1/14/20 1:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: seems to be what they emit on x86_64. Now, wonder what they do on other targets Other targets are not supported :P , and how does it play with all the other options that add stuff to the

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On 1/14/20 3:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: But then the compiler should just fail if you mix the two, rather than emitting something that doesn't work at all. Or better fix the design, so that it can grok an endbr64 together with the following jump as another magic. Sure. One can make an error wh

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On 1/14/20 4:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 04:15:54PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: On 1/14/20 3:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: But then the compiler should just fail if you mix the two, rather than emitting something that doesn't work at all. Or better fix the design, so

git: remote: *** The first line of a commit message should be a short description of the change, not a single word.

Can you please remove the hook for user branches likes: $ git push origin me/filter-non-common Enumerating objects: 27, done. Counting objects: 100% (27/27), done. Delta compression using up to 16 threads Compressing objects: 100% (14/14), done. Writing objects: 100% (14/14), 1.77 KiB | 1.77 MiB/

Re: git: remote: *** The first line of a commit message should be a short description of the change, not a single word.

On 1/21/20 6:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Whether they make it to trunk or not doesn't really change the fact that a one-word message is poor. If it's only on your local machine, do what you like. The hook only complains when such a commit is published on gcc.gnu.org. I would disagree here. I

Re: GCC GSoC 2020: Call for mentors and project ideas

On 1/15/20 11:45 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: Therefore, first and foremost, I would like to ask all (moderately) seasoned GCC contributors to consider mentoring a student this year and ideally also come up with a project that they would like to lead. I'm collecting proposal on our wiki page @Davi

Re: GSoC Questions

On 2/5/20 7:21 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote: Greetings Martin, I won't be applied but it was good to see you at least got some possible ideas out of my research from the make parts. Two questions as related to GSoC, in terms of long term planning for my work: Hello. 1. *Implement something si

Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt

On 2/20/20 8:29 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hi, having just lost a few hours on a space in lang.opt where there was supposed to be none, leading to a new option being silently ignored, a request: Hello. Sure, I can improve sanity checking. What exactly have you screwed up? Would it be possibl

Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt

On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hi Martin, Sure, I can improve sanity checking. Thanks! What exactly have you screwed up? I had, in lang.opt EnumValue Enum (gfc_fcoarray) String (native) Value (GFC_FCOARRAY_NATIVE) It was a bit non-obvious to me that this led to the whole sub-op

Re: Request for better syntax checking in lang.opt

On 2/23/20 10:47 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hi Martin, I was able to write a sanity check for these kind of issues, but it does not resolve all similar issues for other keywords. It's not easy to do it. Having looked at the origina awk code, I agree.  Maybe, in the long term, a lex/yacc grammar

Re: Make LTO Patch for Job Server Thread Detection Agnostic

On 2/27/20 9:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Martin, the comment in your patch says "-std=c11" which should be c++11. Sure, thanks for pointing to it. I'm going to install the obvious patch for it. Martin >From 3c633731ade4cdad56f5729eaedb76cb2f727c39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Liska

Re: GSoC topic: Implement hot cold splitting at GIMPLE IR level

Hello. Thank you for idea. I would like to provide some comments about what GCC can currently do and I'm curious we need something extra on top of what we do. Right now, GCC can do hot/cold partitioning based on functions and basic blocks. With a PGO profile, the optimization is quite aggressiv

GCC bugzilla: REST API

Hi. I'm working on a script that will catch the missing email into Bugzilla that are triggered by git commits mentioning a PR. For that I would need the enablement of REST API that was enabled in previous bugzilla instance. Thank you, Martin

Re: GCC bugzilla: REST API

On 3/12/20 12:15 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - I'm working on a script that will catch the missing email into Bugzilla that are triggered by git commits mentioning a PR. For that I would need the enablement of REST API that was enabled in previous bugzilla instance. I believe this should w

Re: commits in Bugzilla attributed to others?

On 3/13/20 5:03 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:56:58AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/13/20 9:50 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:46:40AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: It looks as though commits with bug fixes appear in Bugzilla comments made by ot

Not usable email content encoding

Hello. I noticed some emails reaching gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org use the following quoting: ``` case UNGT_EXPR: case UNGE_EXPR: case UNEQ_EXPR: +case MEM_REF: /* Binary operations evaluating both arguments (increment and =09 decrement are binary internally in GCC). */

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On 3/16/20 2:47 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: This isn't new.  It's usually the sender that controls that, though it's often  automatic in their email client. Jakub told me that he sees: Ten mail byl: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline while the email reachin

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On 3/16/20 2:54 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: Are you trying to copy from the raw message representation? Exactly. Martin

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

Hi. The suggested approach expect that the revision belongs to master branch. Which is not the case for branch commits like: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91601#c11 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275301&root=gcc&view=rev Thank you, Martin

Re: Question about git: merging to gccgo branch

On 1/22/20 7:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I don't want to send 581 e-mails. I would be happy not sending any e-mails at all. I would also be happy sending 1 e-mail. This is the issue we've discussed in

Re: Question about git: merging to gccgo branch

On 3/30/20 7:54 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: Email sending for user branches makes perfect sense, to make visible the development going on. If so, can we then come up with a naming convention that will block the email sending. I mean something like me/PR123456-fix-that-private? I see the limitation

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/2/20 2:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 02:19:10PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Am 20.03.20 um 18:37 schrieb Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc: Hi - Both svn: and ssh+svn: now work for your archeological needs. Further, URLs such as https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/3/20 10:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:38:17AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: The gcc git svn-rev alias handles that (and also handles release and other branches) using approx. git log --all --grep="From-SVN: r$rev\b" | head -n 1 | awk '{print $2}' w

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/3/20 11:23 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/3/20 10:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:38:17AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: The gcc git svn-rev alias handles that (and also handles release and other branches) using approx. git log --all --grep="From-SVN: r$rev\b" |

Re: text/x-* attachments stripped (was: Re: gcc ML archive: text/x-patch attachments no longer shown inline (was:Re: Mailing list stripping off attachments))

On 3/9/20 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:46:31AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: Hi Thomas, hi Overseers I can confirm that those are stripped off! I did sent an email with three attachments: * test.txt (text/plain) * test.diff (text/x-diff) * the company's disclaimer T

mailman customization

Hello. I believe we can quite easily customize mailman 2.1 to match our needs. The biggest challenge I see is a proper testing as I don't see it easy to set up a local mailman instance. I've got a patch that changes: - by date sorting will be done in reverse order - default link of e.g. https://

Re: mailman customization

On 4/3/20 5:54 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - I believe we can quite easily customize mailman 2.1 to match our needs. The biggest challenge I see is a proper testing as I don't see it easy to set up a local mailman instance. I've got a patch that changes: I suppose we can do some local RPM

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/3/20 10:19 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - https://gcc.gnu.org/r2000 maps to a search and you get thousands of hits for SVN: r2000** The gcc git svn-rev alias handles that (and also handles release and other branches) using approx. git log --all --grep="From-SVN: r$rev\b" | head -n 1 |

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/6/20 1:57 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - Courtesy of a lovely httpd RewriteMap-basd hack courtesy of Martin, we have all the svn r# redirects working, and faster than before. Great. Thank you application of the RewriteMap! Martin - FChE

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/6/20 10:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:09:24AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/6/20 1:57 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - Courtesy of a lovely httpd RewriteMap-basd hack courtesy of Martin, we have all the svn r# redirects working, and faster than before

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/6/20 10:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:46:34AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/6/20 10:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:09:24AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/6/20 1:57 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - Courtesy of a lovely httpd RewriteMap

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/6/20 5:04 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: That is r105377 till r105390 was only ever done on a test SVN repo and r105927 (hooks) was the first commit to SVN after the conversion from Actually r105926 (creating the hooks directory) was the first co

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/7/20 9:22 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: On Apr 07 2020, Martin Liška wrote: Can you please help me how can one clone (or pull) complete content of git repo? Easiest way is to do a mirror clone. All right, --mirror is a new option to me. Doing that. Thanks, Martin Andreas.

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/7/20 9:29 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/7/20 9:22 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: On Apr 07 2020, Martin Liška wrote: Can you please help me how can one clone (or pull) complete content of git repo? Easiest way is to do a mirror clone. All right, --mirror is a new option to me. There&#

Re: Questions about code instrumentation in FDO

On 4/7/20 2:01 PM, Erick Ochoa wrote: Hello, Can someone help me understand better GCC's profile driven instrumentation? I know this can be a long topic, but I am not looking for a long discussion. I am just trying to orient myself regarding GCC's FDO implementation. Hello. Sure. 1. I kn

Re: subversion status on gcc.gnu.org

On 4/7/20 4:09 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi - There's update SVN to GIT map file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DMuFDu476stLdMxKSaDzv4c81rhMAGEI/view?usp=sharing Updated. Thanks. I can form https://gcc.gnu.org/r12345 works right now. Martin - FChE

Re: Martin Liska appointed GCC IPA Reviewer

On 4/13/20 9:54 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Martin Liska as IPA Reviewer. Please join me in congratulating Martin on his new role. Martin, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file. Happy hacking! Davi

Re: GCC optimizations with O3

On 4/22/20 4:01 PM, Erick Ochoa wrote: Hello, Does anyone know if the following text from the GCC internals [0] is outdated? -O3     Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations specified by -O2 and also turns on the following optimization flags:     -fgcse-after-reload     -fipa-cp-

C-Vise project introduction

Hello. I would like to announce a new Python fork of the C-Reduce tool: https://github.com/marxin/cvise I'm going to start with a bit of history and motivation behind the project. All started 6 years ago when I joined SUSE as a toolchain developer and I quickly became a friend with C-Reduce tha

Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

Hello. Based on the initial discussion with Richi and Jakub, we would like to remove need to update ChangeLog files with each git commit. Instead, a script will be used to extract ChangeLog entries from a git commit messages. I've started with extraction of ~2K commits since we switched to git (

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

On 4/30/20 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: If this is what is really created, then for the new file, missing * space, gcc/testsuite/ that shouldn't be there and missing PR c++/94546 line above it. I've just fixed all these, thanks! About the 'PR c++/94546': it's mentioned in context of 'gcc/cp/C

Re: GCC 10.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On 4/30/20 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: The first release candidate for GCC 10.1 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.1.0-RC-20200430/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.1.0-RC-20200430 What about naming these 10.1.0-rc1? and shortly its mirrors. It

Re: GCC 10.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On 5/1/20 10:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 09:23:33AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: On 4/30/20 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: The first release candidate for GCC 10.1 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.1.0-RC-20200430/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

On 4/30/20 5:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: In this last entry, as there were more than one ChangeLog snippets and they had different PR lines, I wouldn't put anything into the automatically added gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog entry. Does this make sense? Basically, try to do what is most likely the use

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

Once it is enforced we'd probably disallow touching ChangeLog files in a commit with other changed files and during the maintainer-scripts/update_version_git script ought to check in in addition to the DATESTAMP updates in the same commit also updates to all the ChangeLog files since the last DAT

Re: gcc 10.0.1 20200506 build fails to compile linux kernel

On 5/6/20 6:44 AM, Tetsuji Rai via Gcc wrote: I wonder how Fedora project built its own kernel.  I can't build custom kernel with it. What's wrong with 10.1-RC or how can I report my problem? Hi. Is it possible that you reached https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200417190607.GY2424@tucnak/T/ ?

Re: gcc 10.0.1 20200506 build fails to compile linux kernel

_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG is off for its native gcc. Thank you very much!! Great it's a known issue. Martin -Tetsuji On 5/6/20 4:19 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/6/20 6:44 AM, Tetsuji Rai via Gcc wrote: I wonder how Fedora project built its own kernel.  I can't build custom kernel wit

Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

Hi. Thanks to Jakub, we finally set up an experimental environment: gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-8.git The repository now contains a new pre-commit hook that validates the git commit format ([1]) and provides a reasonable error message when violated. The hook is based on [2] and the

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

I'm also CCing gcc-patches and fortran ML. Martin On 5/12/20 11:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. Thanks to Jakub, we finally set up an experimental environment: gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-8.git The repository now contains a new pre-commit hook that validates the git c

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

On 5/13/20 10:16 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: As far as this particular example goes, shouldn't the "testsuite/" line be dropped from the above? Good point. Fixes now with: $ ./git_email.py patches/0020-IPA-Avoid-segfault-in-devirtualization_time_bonus-PR.patch Errors: first line should start

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

On 5/13/20 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Hmm, it's OK in the commit but it should be omitted in the ChangeLog files. No, ChangeLog file identification should not be prepended with a tab. "testsuite/" will work. Martin

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

On 5/13/20 11:50 AM, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote: "git_changelog.py" is nowhere to be found in the gcc-changelog or gcc-reposurgeon-8 repos. Is it equivalent to any of the other scripts in gcc-changelog? Yes, I made some refactoring and I'm going to send a proper gcc-patches submission. The script

ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

Hi. I'm sending the gcc-changelog relates scripts which should be added to contrib folder. The patch contains: - git_check_commit.py - checking script that verifies git message format - git_update_version.py - a replacement of maintainer-scripts/update_version_git which bumps DATESTAMP and gener

ChangeLog files - server and client scripts (git cherry-pick)

On 5/13/20 1:05 PM, Martin Liška wrote: I suggest to use native 'git revert XYZ' and 'git cherry-pick -x XYZ'. I've prepared a working version of Revert format: https://github.com/marxin/gcc-changelog/tree/cherry-pick So using git cherry-pick -x HASH one gets somet

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

The scripts were just installed to master except the git alias. I'm sending that in a separate patch. Now the alias can be used from any subfolder in a gcc git repository. Martin >From eb47191e8d8cbbda285c4df7eb2d1e98091edab9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Liska Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/13/20 3:24 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I've just realized this doesn't give us an easy way to mark changes for the root-level ChangeLog file, unless, perhaps "@@ CL ." works? This works fine: 'ChangeLog:' as seen for instance here: commit 9ad3c1d81c129fc76594b9df5b798c380cbf03ee Author:

C-Vise: speed?

Hello. I've made some measurements for GCC PRs that I've reduced recently: - PR92516 - C++ - 6.5MB C-Reduce: 77 minutes C-Vise: 35 minutes - PR94523 - C++ - 2.1MB C-Reduce: 33 minutes C-Vise: 15 minutes - PR94632 - C++ - 3.3MB C-Reduce: 28 minutes C-Vise: 20 minutes - PR94937 - C+

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts (git cherry-pick)

Hello. I'm sending patch candidate that adds 2 new git aliases: - gcc-backport - simple alias to 'git cherry-pick -x' - gcc-revert - it similarly appends '(this reverts commit 365e3cde4978c6a7dbfa50865720226254c016be)' to a reverted commit message The script normally parses content of a git mes

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/13/20 7:53 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 13 May 2020, Martin Liška wrote: I'm sending the gcc-changelog relates scripts which should be added to contrib folder. The patch contains: - git_check_commit.py - checking script that verifies git message format We need a documentation

New mklog script

Hi. Since we moved to git world and we're in the preparation for ChangeLog messages being in git commit messages, I think it's the right time to also simplify mklog script. I'm sending a new version (which should eventually replace contrib/mklog and contrib/mklog.pl). Changes made in the versio

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/14/20 6:47 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2020, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/13/20 7:53 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 13 May 2020, Martin Liška wrote: I'm sending the gcc-changelog relates scripts which should be added to contrib folder. The patch contains: - git_check_comm

Re: New mklog script

On 5/15/20 12:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 10:59 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. Since we moved to git world and we're in the preparation for ChangeLog messages being in git commit messages, I think it's the right time to also simplify mklog script. I'

Re: New mklog script

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 disappears. Ah, I can see a consumer. There's an updated version that supports that. For the future, will you still use the option? Wouldn't be better to put the ChangeLog content dir

Re: New mklog script

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 disappears. Ah, I can see a consumer. There's an updated version that sup

Re: New mklog script

On 5/15/20 5:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/15/20 2:59 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. Since we moved to git world and we're in the preparation for ChangeLog messages being in git commit messages, I think it's the right time to also simplify mklog script. I'm sending a new versio

Re: New mklog script

On 5/19/20 10:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Can you please share how do you do it? It would be easy to add it. I added the feature via --fill-up-bug-titles option. It uses common request and beatifulsoup packages. Martin >From 5450c99b54131d1942ece3ffb6bbe415b1c85151 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2

Re: New mklog script

On 5/19/20 10:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:11:28AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: I find this format more helpful for the reasons below so unless your script can be tweaked to do something similar I'd like to be able to continue to use mine going forward with th

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

Hello. 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 documented her

Re: New mklog script

On 5/19/20 10:53 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/19/20 10:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Can you please share how do you do it? It would be easy to add it. I added the feature via --fill-up-bug-titles option. It uses common request and beatifulsoup packages. Martin Ok, I'm going to instal

Re: New mklog script

On 5/19/20 5:53 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2020, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/19/20 10:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Can you please share how do you do it? It would be easy to add it. I added the feature via --fill-up-bug-titles option. It uses common request and beatifulsoup packages

Re: ERR: file not changed in a patch:"gcc/cp/cp-tree.c"

On 5/19/20 9:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: Yep, that was it.  It's one of those things that you can stare at for minutes before you notice it. Thank you for the report, it's 1:0 for the hook ;) Next time, please CC me to a similar issue with the hook. Martin

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts (git cherry-pick)

On 5/14/20 2:42 PM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. I'm sending patch candidate that adds 2 new git aliases: - gcc-backport - simple alias to 'git cherry-pick -x' - gcc-revert - it similarly appends '(this reverts commit 365e3cde4978c6a7dbfa50865720226254c016be)' to a rev

Re: ERR: file not changed in a patch:"gcc/cp/cp-tree.c"

On 5/19/20 9:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/19/20 1:26 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/19/20 9:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: Yep, that was it.  It's one of those things that you can stare at for minutes before you notice it. Thank you for the report, it's 1:0 for the hook ;)

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/20/20 12:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Or this one that actually adds the closing parenthesis Thank you, it's definitely an improvement. There's final version of the patch I've just applied. Martin >From a55c1018c9d7c53b643203e7f71b06953fae86a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Wak

Re: Commit hook for cherry-pick commit

On 5/20/20 12:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: I got: $ git push origin releases/gcc-10 Enumerating objects: 15, done. Counting objects: 100% (15/15), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing objects: 100% (6/6), done. Writing objects: 100% (8/8), 1.15 KiB | 1.15 MiB/s, done. Total 8 (delt

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts (git cherry-pick)

On 5/20/20 11:19 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hm, one question: I find the r11-1234 type commit to be much more readable, in ChangeLog files and everywhere else. Would it be possible to have that format instead of "cherry picked from commit $HEX_SOUP" ? I'm not aware of how to do it. Please let's

Re: Commit hook for cherry-pick commit

On 5/20/20 1:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:40 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 12:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: I got: $ git push origin releases/gcc-10 Enumerating objects: 15, done. Counting objects: 100% (15/15), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing

Re: Commit hook for cherry-pick commit

On 5/20/20 3:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:47 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 1:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:40 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 12:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: I got: $ git push origin releases/gcc-10 Enumerating objects: 15, done

Re: Commit hook for cherry-pick commit

On 5/20/20 3:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:55 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 3:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:47 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 1:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:40 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 12:59 AM, H.J

Re: Is commit hook broken?

On 5/21/20 2:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:23 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 3:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:55 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 3:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:47 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/20/20 1:31 PM, H.J

Re: New mklog script

Hello Martin. Can you please compare the current mklog.py. Is there anything you miss compared to your current script? Thanks, Martin

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

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

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

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

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

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

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

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

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

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

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/23/20 12:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Sure, I can wait. Thanks for looking at it. Hello. Thank you for patience. There's a patch that fixes that, I'm going to install it. Martin >From 76e18b91250f265a37d85063860fb38aa8f6aac3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Liska Date: Mon, 25 M

Re: New mklog script

On 5/22/20 6:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/21/20 2:16 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello Martin. Can you please compare the current mklog.py. Is there anything you miss compared to your current script? Nope, it matches the format I get with my script and even works better and runs faster.  Very

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/21/20 5:14 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: * In changelog_location, you allow only (among others) "a/b/c/" and "\ta/b/c/". Please also accept the "a/b/c:" and "\ta/b/c:" forms here: especially the second seems quite common. Ok, I believe these formats are supported as well. Feel free to ment

Re: New mklog script

On 5/22/20 11:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:03 PM Jason Merrill wrote: 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

Re: [IMPORTANT] ChangeLog related changes

On 5/26/20 7:22 AM, Hongtao Liu via Gcc wrote: i commit a separate patch alone only for ChangeLog files, should i revert it? Hello. I've just done it. Martin

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 5/26/20 7:31 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On May 25, 2020, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/21/20 5:14 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: * In changelog_location, you allow only (among others) "a/b/c/" and "\ta/b/c/". Please also accept the "a/b/c:" and "\ta/b/c:" forms

Re: New mklog script

On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with 'gcc-'? This seems to go against that. You are right, but this one is so handy ;) What name do you suggest? Martin

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

On 5/26/20 12:15 PM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: Hello Martin, First, thank you for your work on this new ChangeLog workflow. :-) Hello. Thank you. I’d like to report a “regression”: I can’t push the attached patch: remote: *** ChangeLog format failed: remote: ERR: changed file not menti

Re: [IMPORTANT] ChangeLog related changes

On 5/26/20 1:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I haven't investigated in detail, but could we use a merge strategy with the cherry-pick to drop ChangeLog entries? If that works, sure. Note, when cherry-picking commits from bef

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - script

On 5/26/20 2:35 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, It looks like the hook does not accept multi-line ChangeLog entries affecting multiple files:     * contracts.adb, einfo.adb, exp_ch9.adb, sem_ch12.adb,     sem_ch4.adb, sem_ch7.adb, sem_ch8.adb, sem_elab.adb,     sem_type.adb, s

Re: New mklog script

On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with 'gcc-'?  This seems to go against that. You are right, but this one is so han

Re: New mklog script

On 5/26/20 3:11 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with 

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >