[PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration

[PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:

	* gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
---
 gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
---
Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
+++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
@@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
 int gfc_at_bol (void);
 int gfc_at_eol (void);
 void gfc_advance_line (void);
-int gfc_check_include (void);
 int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
 
 int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration

[Harald Anlauf]

Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
> This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>
> 	* gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
> ---
>   gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> ---
> Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
>   int gfc_at_bol (void);
>   int gfc_at_eol (void);
>   void gfc_advance_line (void);
> -int gfc_check_include (void);
>   int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
>
>   int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);

OK, thanks.

git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Jason Merrill]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
> > This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
> >
> > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
> > ---
> >   gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
> >   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > ---
> > Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> > index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> > @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
> >   int gfc_at_bol (void);
> >   int gfc_at_eol (void);
> >   void gfc_advance_line (void);
> > -int gfc_check_include (void);
> >   int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
> >
> >   int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
>
> OK, thanks.

Somehow this was applied with a CommitDate in 2021, breaking scripts
that assume monotonically increasing CommitDate.  Anyone know how that
could have happened?

Jason

Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Harald Anlauf]

Am 19.01.23 um 20:39 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
>>> This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
>>>
>>> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>>        * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
>>> ---
>>>    gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
>>>    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>> ---
>>> Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>> index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>> @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
>>>    int gfc_at_bol (void);
>>>    int gfc_at_eol (void);
>>>    void gfc_advance_line (void);
>>> -int gfc_check_include (void);
>>>    int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
>>>
>>>    int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
>>
>> OK, thanks.
>
> Somehow this was applied with a CommitDate in 2021, breaking scripts
> that assume monotonically increasing CommitDate.  Anyone know how that
> could have happened?

It is quite unusual that the CommitDate is before the AuthorDate:

% git show --pretty=fuller 7ce0cee77adf33397d0ba61e7445effd8a5d8fcc |
head -5
commit 7ce0cee77adf33397d0ba61e7445effd8a5d8fcc
Author:     Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <aldot@gcc.gnu.org>
AuthorDate: Sat Nov 6 06:51:00 2021 +0100
Commit:     Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <aldot@gcc.gnu.org>
CommitDate: Sat Nov 6 06:48:00 2021 +0100

Could this have prevented checks to work properly?

Harald

> Jason
>
>

Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On 19 January 2023 20:39:08 CET, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
><gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
>> > This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
>> >
>> > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>> >
>> >       * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
>> > ---
>> >   gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
>> >   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> > ---
>> > Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
>> >
>> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> > index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> > @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
>> >   int gfc_at_bol (void);
>> >   int gfc_at_eol (void);
>> >   void gfc_advance_line (void);
>> > -int gfc_check_include (void);
>> >   int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
>> >
>> >   int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
>>
>> OK, thanks.
>
>Somehow this was applied with a CommitDate in 2021, breaking scripts
>that assume monotonically increasing CommitDate.  Anyone know how that
>could have happened?

Sorry for that.
I think i cherry-picked this commit to master before pushing it, not 100% sure though.
What shall we do now?

Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Jason Merrill]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 19 January 2023 20:39:08 CET, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
> ><gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
> >> > This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
> >> >
> >> > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
> >> >
> >> >       * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
> >> > ---
> >> >   gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
> >> >   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >> > ---
> >> > Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> >> > index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
> >> > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> >> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
> >> > @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
> >> >   int gfc_at_bol (void);
> >> >   int gfc_at_eol (void);
> >> >   void gfc_advance_line (void);
> >> > -int gfc_check_include (void);
> >> >   int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
> >> >
> >> >   int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
> >>
> >> OK, thanks.
> >
> >Somehow this was applied with a CommitDate in 2021, breaking scripts
> >that assume monotonically increasing CommitDate.  Anyone know how that
> >could have happened?
>
> Sorry for that.
> I think i cherry-picked this commit to master before pushing it, not 100% sure though.

You would have also needed to override the commit date with
GIT_COMMITTER_DATE.  Do you remember using that environment variable
at all?

> What shall we do now?

I don't think there's anything we can do about this commit at this
point; rewriting the git history would be a bigger disruption than
leaving it alone.

Martin, I wonder about having the hooks reject out-of-order CommitDate
in future?

Jason

Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Martin Liška]

On 1/20/23 18:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Martin, I wonder about having the hooks reject out-of-order CommitDate
> in future?

Yes, I would do that. Looking at the last 30K commmits I see just a few violations
of the order:

UNIXTS     hash
1668298622 30d77d49628
1630019619 5889e842ae4
1626967834 3f7a2374d31
1624564915 a0accaa9984
1620660174 0498d2d09a2
1606210175 f72175357d0
1605630503 8895913273b
1604409789 1528f34341b
1601415121 f836f3bc8f7
1593773652 9bc2c2347d5
1588873342 b9250b3cb91
1582563261 9069e9484ce

Martin

Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 1/19/23 23:26, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 19 January 2023 20:39:08 CET, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:24 PM Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 12.11.22 um 22:05 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches:
>>>> This function definition was removed years ago, remove it's prototype.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>       * gfortran.h (gfc_check_include): Remove declaration.
>>>> ---
>>>>   gcc/fortran/gfortran.h | 1 -
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>> ---
>>>> Regtests cleanly, ok for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>>> index c4deec0d5b8..ce3ad61bb52 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>>>> @@ -3208,7 +3208,6 @@ int gfc_at_eof (void);
>>>>   int gfc_at_bol (void);
>>>>   int gfc_at_eol (void);
>>>>   void gfc_advance_line (void);
>>>> -int gfc_check_include (void);
>>>>   int gfc_define_undef_line (void);
>>>>
>>>>   int gfc_wide_is_printable (gfc_char_t);
>>>
>>> OK, thanks.
>>
>> Somehow this was applied with a CommitDate in 2021, breaking scripts
>> that assume monotonically increasing CommitDate.  Anyone know how that
>> could have happened?
> 
> Sorry for that.
> I think i cherry-picked this commit to master before pushing it, not 100% sure though.
> What shall we do now?

I doubt a cherry-pick did this, we cherry pick often in glibc and the
commit is added to the top of checkout and the commit date updated.

There isn't anything we can do now.

I was recently made aware that --since-as-filter= was added specifically to address this issue.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/git/patch/YlnYDgZRzDI87b/z@vmiklos.hu/
~~~
This is similar to --since, but it will filter out not matching commits,
rather than stopping at the first not matching commit.

This is useful if you e.g. want to list the commits from the last year,
but one odd commit has a bad commit date and that would hide lots of
earlier commits in that range.

The behavior of --since is left unchanged, since it's valid to depend on
its current behavior.

Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@vmiklos.hu>
~~~

"but one odd commit has a bad commit date" :-)

We should try to avoid commits like this because they really complicate
any date-based analysis tooling, and --since-as-filter is fairly new.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.