Re: [PATCH] c++: private inheritance access diagnostics fix [PR17314]

[Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>]

On 1/21/21 2:28 PM, Anthony Sharp wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> I've finally completed my copyright assignment form. I've attached it
> to this email for reference.
> 
>> You don't need write access to the main repository to use these commands
>> on your local copy.  One nice thing about git compared to svn is that
>> you don't need to touch the server for anything but push and pull.
>>
>> Incidentally, how are you producing your patch?  Maybe try git
>> format-patch instead.
> 
> The method I am using at the moment is the one Ranjit Mathew talks
> about here: http://rmathew.com/articles/gcj/crpatch.html.

Interesting.  Yeah, that page is obsolete since the move to git.

> It's my fault kind of - the official GCC webpage
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html) explaining how to do it is called
> 'Read-write Git access' so I assumed it was only relevant for people
> who have access to the repo, but I see that is not the case.

Those pages could definitely be more clearly organized.

> I've tried the git way of doing it and I'm attaching a new patch file
> that (hopefully) is better this time. Basically what I did was what
> you suggested:
> 
> git pull
> contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh
> (make changes)
> git add *
> git gcc-commit-mklog
> git gcc-commit-mklog --amend

Why two gcc-comit-mklog?  That would generate the log entries twice.

You should also git gcc-verify at this point; for me, it complains about 
some of your header lines in the log.  Your author line needs to start 
at the first column, and use "01" for January instead of just "1".  The 
other explanatory lines can be omitted, in favor of:

The commit message before the log entries should include your rationale 
for the patch (e.g. the first two paragraphs of your initial email).

> git format-patch -1 master
> 
> I also re-built the source just to make sure I hadn't messed anything
> up. I re-ran the C++ regression tests using make check-c and make
> check-c++. Whilst I did not do a before/after comparison of the
> results, I checked the FAILs in gcc.sum and g++.sum and they all
> looked like they had nothing to do with my code. All the code is the
> same as before, so I'm thinking it should be fine (I just wanted to be
> safe). Also checked against check_GNU_style.sh.
> 
> Assuming that's all fine, as for the code itself, there might well be
> some tweaks that could make it better, and so if that is the case then
> please let me know.

I'll look at the code soon.

Thanks,
Jason