public inbox for fortran@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration
@ 2022-11-12 21:05 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  2022-11-12 21:23 ` Harald Anlauf
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2022-11-12 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: fortran; +Cc: gcc-patches, 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration
  2022-11-12 21:05 [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
@ 2022-11-12 21:23 ` Harald Anlauf
  2023-01-19 19:39   ` git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration) Jason Merrill
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2022-11-12 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, fortran; +Cc: gcc-patches, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer

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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2022-11-12 21:23 ` Harald Anlauf
@ 2023-01-19 19:39   ` Jason Merrill
  2023-01-19 20:20     ` Harald Anlauf
  2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-01-19 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Harald Anlauf
  Cc: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, gfortran, gcc-patches List,
	Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Carlos O'Donell

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2023-01-19 19:39   ` git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration) Jason Merrill
@ 2023-01-19 20:20     ` Harald Anlauf
  2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2023-01-19 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Merrill
  Cc: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, gfortran, gcc-patches List,
	Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Carlos O'Donell

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
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2023-01-19 19:39   ` git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration) Jason Merrill
  2023-01-19 20:20     ` Harald Anlauf
@ 2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  2023-01-20 17:33       ` Jason Merrill
  2023-01-20 22:01       ` Carlos O'Donell
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2023-01-20  4:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Merrill, Harald Anlauf
  Cc: gfortran, gcc-patches List, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer,
	Carlos O'Donell

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?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
@ 2023-01-20 17:33       ` Jason Merrill
  2023-01-23 10:37         ` Martin Liška
  2023-01-20 22:01       ` Carlos O'Donell
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-01-20 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  Cc: Harald Anlauf, gfortran, gcc-patches List,
	Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Carlos O'Donell, Martin Liška

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  2023-01-20 17:33       ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-01-20 22:01       ` Carlos O'Donell
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-01-20 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Jason Merrill, Harald Anlauf
  Cc: gfortran, gcc-patches List, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer,
	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.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration)
  2023-01-20 17:33       ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-01-23 10:37         ` Martin Liška
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin Liška @ 2023-01-23 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Merrill, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
  Cc: Harald Anlauf, gfortran, gcc-patches List,
	Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Carlos O'Donell

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-23 10:37 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-11-12 21:05 [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2022-11-12 21:23 ` Harald Anlauf
2023-01-19 19:39   ` git out-of-order commit (was Re: [PATCH] Fortran: Remove unused declaration) Jason Merrill
2023-01-19 20:20     ` Harald Anlauf
2023-01-20  4:26     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-01-20 17:33       ` Jason Merrill
2023-01-23 10:37         ` Martin Liška
2023-01-20 22:01       ` Carlos O'Donell

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).