Hi Joseph,

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, NightStrike wrote:
> 
> > On 12/4/07, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, NightStrike wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00767.html
> > > >
> > > > This old thread is in need of review to help the x86_64-pc-mingw32
> > > > port of gcc.  It's been about 8 months so far.  Any takers to 
review
> > > > the patch?
> > >
> > > If there is a patch with full testcases, please point to it - that 
patch
> > > appears to be one without testcases, and so not ready for review.
> > 
> > I think Kai was waiting until your review before making the testcases.
> >  Can you at least evaluate what's there already?
> 
> No, in the original discussions leading to that patch we already 
discussed 
> the general nature of what the feature should look like at the language 
> level, and assessing whether the patch meets that requires testcases 
(and 
> changes to existing testcases) that provide proper coverage of the new 
and 
> existing features and leave all the format checking tests passing on 
both 
> MinGW and non-MinGW targets.
> 
> If after reviewing testcases and code I suspect problems in areas not 
> covered by the tests I build the compiler with a patch when reviewing it 

> and try my own tests, but the basic tests to provide thorough coverage 
of 
> the patch are the responsibility of the patch submitter.  This (and 
> diagnostic-related patches in general) is the sort of patch I review 
> primarily by examining the testcases to see if I agree with the 
> diagnostics asserted to be present or absent and that the testcases 
appear 
> to cover the feature as described, and only secondarily if the testcases 

> appear correct and adequate by examining the implementation.
> 
> I made clear on 25 April 
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01734.html> that I was 
> awaiting testsuite changes.  I do not think there is any open question 
> regarding the principle of the feature (where partial patches might be 
of 
> value in assessing how worthwhile a feature is bearing in mind the cost 
of 
> the implementation); what needs review is the quality of an 
> implementation, and that needs a complete patch submission.

I added updated the patch against current head version of gcc and add a 
test-case for the common case that the system (crt) version of formatter 
is used. For mingw targets there is no %lld formatter existing. Instead MS 
functions are using %I64d and %I64d. This patch additionally allows the 
user to define a alternative formatter beside the system one for i386 
targets. The default formatters are named "gnu_*" and the MS specific 
"ms_*".

This patch is tested for *-pc-mingw32 (using MS %I32 and %I64) and for 
i686-pc-cygwin (for the gnu variant).

ChangeLog:

2007-12-18  Kai Tietz   <kai.tietz@onevision.com>

        * gcc/doc/extend.texi: Extent user description.
        * gcc/doc/tm.texi: (TARGET_OVERRIDES_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTES,
        TARGET_OVERRIDES_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTES_COUNT): New.
        * gcc/c-format.c: (replace_formatter_name_to_system_name): New
        method to map target format attributes as system.
        (decode_format_attr): Translate system format attribute names.
        (format_types_orig): Prefix gnu attributes by "gnu_".
        (ARGET_OVERRIDES_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTES): New extern for
        target specific system format attribute override.
        (gnu_target_overrides_format_attributes): Default overrides for 
gnu.
        * gcc/c-format.h: (target_ovr_attr): New type for system attribute
        mapping.
        * gcc/config/i386/mingw32.h: (TARGET_OVERRIDES_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTES,
        TARGET_OVERRIDES_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTES_COUNT,
        TARGET_FORMAT_TYPES, TARGET_N_FORMAT_TYPES): New.
        * gcc/config/i386/i386.c: Add ms-formatter definitions.
        * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sys_formatter.c: New test case.


Cheers,
 i.A. Kai Tietz



|  (\_/)  This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
| (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
| (")_(") world domination.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  OneVision Software Entwicklungs GmbH & Co. KG
  Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Straße 9 - 93049 Regensburg
  Tel: +49.(0)941.78004.0 - Fax: +49.(0)941.78004.489 - www.OneVision.com
  Commerzbank Regensburg - BLZ 750 400 62 - Konto 6011050
  Handelsregister: HRA 6744, Amtsgericht Regensburg
  Komplementärin: OneVision Software Entwicklungs Verwaltungs GmbH
  Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Straße 9 – 93049 Regensburg
  Handelsregister: HRB 8932, Amtsgericht Regensburg - Geschäftsführer: 
Ulrike Döhler, Manuela Kluger