2014-10-20 16:11 GMT+02:00 Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>> 2014-10-18 23:07 GMT+02:00 Krzesimir Nowak :
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> This is my first patch for GCC. I already started a paperwork for
>>> copyright assignment (sent an email to fsf-records at gnu org) -
>>> waiting for response.
>>>
>>> So, about this
> 2014-10-18 23:07 GMT+02:00 Krzesimir Nowak :
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is my first patch for GCC. I already started a paperwork for
>> copyright assignment (sent an email to fsf-records at gnu org) -
>> waiting for response.
>>
>> So, about this patch - it basically removes column printing from "In
>>
2014-10-18 23:07 GMT+02:00 Krzesimir Nowak :
> Hello.
>
> This is my first patch for GCC. I already started a paperwork for
> copyright assignment (sent an email to fsf-records at gnu org) -
> waiting for response.
>
> So, about this patch - it basically removes column printing from "In
> file incl
> "Shakthi" == Shakthi Kannan writes:
Shakthi> Is the following patch okay for trunk?
I still think it needs a test case.
I also don't recall -- did you check to see if the column number that is
emitted is actually correct?
You may want to change the Subject line of your note, as well.
The
Hi,
Is the following patch okay for trunk?
SK
- Original Message -
From: "Shakthi Kannan"
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:25:07 PM
Subject: [PATCH, PR preprocessor/42014] Added LAST_SOURCE_COLUMN in while loop
Hi,
The attached patch adds LAST_SOURCE_COLUMN to
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> | I like using ~/contrib/compare_tests gcc-before.sum gcc-after.sum to
> | determine if there are regressions. You can also use that script to
> | check for regressions between two build trees as well.
> \--
>
> I ran the the script betwee
Hi,
- Original Message -
| From: "Mike Stump"
|
| The output of make -k, or the contents of all the .sum and .log files,
\--
The output of "make -k". I did a "grep '^#'" on the output and the following
results were the same, with and without the patch applied:
# of expected passes
On May 15, 2013, at 3:22 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | From: "Tom Tromey"
> |
> | Does this cause test suite regressions?
> \--
>
> I built gcc-4.8.0 with and without the patch, and ran the test suite for both
> instances using:
>
> $ make -k check
>
> There wa
Hi,
- Original Message -
| From: "Tom Tromey"
|
| Does this cause test suite regressions?
\--
I built gcc-4.8.0 with and without the patch, and ran the test suite for both
instances using:
$ make -k check
There was no difference in the test result output. Is this the same as the tes
> "Shakthi" == Shakthi Kannan writes:
Shakthi> 2013-05-10 Shakthi Kannan
Shakthi> PR preprocessor/42014
Shakthi> * gcc/diagnostic.c: Added LAST_SOURCE_COLUMN in while loop.
You should mention the function name in there.
See the GNU Coding Standards for the format.
Shakthi> -
Hi,
- Original Message -
| From: "Marek Polacek"
|
| Maybe
| PR preprocessor/42014
| * diagnostic.c: Print LAST_SOURCE_COLUMN as well.
| ?
\--
Sure!
SK
--
Shakthi Kannan
skannan at redhat dot com
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 02:55:07AM -0400, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch adds LAST_SOURCE_COLUMN to pp_verbatim
> function in the while loop present in
> diagnostic_report_current_module(). This makes the output
> consistent for any error parsing program as stated in the bug.
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
