Re: PR108672 re-fixed after [PATCH] libstdc++: Synchronize PSTL with upstream

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 09:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 04:48, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:57:49 -0700
> > > From: Thomas Rodgers via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:32 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > All the actual code changes look good.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this overwrote the fix for PR108672.  I take
> > it there's a step missing from the synchronization process;
> > a check that no local commits are overwritten?  Sounds like
> > something that can be fully scripted (not volunteering) or
> > already available (like, "list all commits affecting
> > contents touched by/between two named commits").
> >
> > I did *not* check whether any other local commits were also
> > overwritten.  Also, not sure about whether better try to get
> > this upstreamed: __INT32_TYPE__ seems gcc-specific.
>
> Clang does support it too, but I agree that upstream might not want that change.
>
>
> > Anyway, r13-5702-g72058eea9d407e was "re-committed" per
> > below as obvious after regtesting cris-elf.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'll add an include/pstl/LOCAL_PATCHES file listed the commits we
> apply locally after importing the upstream sources.
>
> Based on git history, the initial list of commits is:

For the record:

> r9-6908-g0360f9ad4048ea
Upstream: c7c6413119380828d92e8beb5fb2f35d3f2e1572
> r9-6942-g9eda9f9231f287
Upstream: 2e15f4ac572bcf429ec12e8f3efbb8ad254042c7
> r9-7071-ga34d6343a758f6
Upstream: 8a497a958be1f4656eff9664e1be29491f3795d2
and 86d4ec756b5e0bc72d7e78fc574e05802959ead4
> r10-572-g34d878c7bc86d4
Not upstream (GCC-specific).
> r10-1314-g32bab8b6ad0a90
Not upstream (probably should be)
> r11-7339-g7e647d71d556b7
Upstream: b152f9f392d42e1c8e29f382f876480631575190
> r12-7699-gac73c944eac88f
Not upstream (GCC-specific)
> r13-3708-ge3b10249119fb4
Not upstream (GCC-specific)
> r13-5702-g72058eea9d407e
Not upstream (GCC-specific)
>
> But several of those have been incorporated upstream, or were
> reapplied correctly to our downstream copies. We'll go through the
> list and find which ones need to stay there.
>
> It looks like r10-1314-g32bab8b6ad0a90 was lost and should be re-applied.