Re: [PATCH] gccrs: avoid printing to stderr in selftest::rust_flatten_list

[Arthur Cohen <arthur.cohen@embecosm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4279 bytes --]

Hi David,

On 1/4/23 20:28, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-01-02 at 13:47 +0100, Arthur Cohen wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Sorry for the delayed reply!
>>
>> On 12/16/22 18:01, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>> OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> gcc/rust/ChangeLog:
>>>          * resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc
>>> (selftest::rust_flatten_list):
>>>          Remove output to stderr.
> 
> For reference, the stderr spewage was:
> 
> foo::bar::baz
> foo::bar::bul
> >
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc | 3 ---
>>>    1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc
>>> b/gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc
>>> index 0c38f28d530..1276e845acc 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-item.cc
>>> @@ -1202,9 +1202,6 @@ rust_flatten_list (void)
>>>      auto paths = std::vector<Rust::AST::SimplePath> ();
>>>      Rust::Resolver::flatten_list (list, paths);
>>>    
>>> -  for (auto &path : paths)
>>> -    fprintf (stderr, "%s\n", path.as_string ().c_str ());
>>> -
>>>      ASSERT_TRUE (!paths.empty ());
>>>      ASSERT_EQ (paths.size (), 2);
>>>      ASSERT_EQ (paths[0].get_segments ()[0].as_string (), "foo");
>>
>> Looks good to me. OK for trunk :)
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time!
> 
> I was about to push this and
>    https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/608645.html
> to trunk (after retesting against all the changes since before my
> break), but you mentioned today on IRC something about merger issues:
> 
> <cohenarthur> ibuclaw: I'm looking at the remaining issues for updating
> GCC's master with our most recent gccrs commits. I've come to the
> conclusion that it would be easier for me to upstream your target
> changes while I'm upstreaming/submitting all of the missing commits
> <cohenarthur> would that suit you?
> <cohenarthur> it would just be me sending in your commits, but I
> wouldn't be author on them or anything of course
> <cohenarthur> this would enable us to time them properly within the
> rest of the commits, so there'd be no conflicts or anything of the sort
> <cohenarthur> dmalcolm: same question to you, actually :)

Sorry for the confusion, and for disappearing from IRC before you got a 
chance to answer! In those messages, I was talking about the 
`error_meta` PR you had submitted to us on Github. Since we are in the 
process of updating upstream with the current state of our dev branch, 
we have to figure out what to do with these commits that are already 
present in our dev branch but not upstreamed yet. Since you and Iain 
have pushed commits to our dev branch, we are wondering whether you'd 
like us to upstream them during this updating process or if you'd like 
to do so on your own.

Regarding the two new patches that you've submitted here and that aren't 
upstreamed or merged in our dev branch yet, it's a bit different. You 
can either go ahead and push them to trunk if that's what you'd like, 
and I'm assuming that when we merge upstream and our dev branch this 
won't cause any conflict. And if these two patches do, they are easy 
enough that we can fix them by hand.

If you'd like, you can also submit a PR instead, and we'll upstream them 
when updating the rest of the frontend upstream, similarly to your 
`error_meta` patches.

Last option, I can also take care of them and merge them directly in our 
dev branch, and we'll upstream them with the rest of the frontend. This 
way you don't have to deal with submitting a PR and so on.

> Can I go ahead and push my two commits to trunk, or do you want to do
> it?  (and if so, do you want them e.g. as PRs against your github
> branch?)
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
>>
>> All the best,
> 
Sorry about all of this. We are working hard on updating upstream so 
that there's no such problems anymore. We'll get that done as soon as 
possible, but winter break put quite the wrench in our plans :)

Thank you for your understanding!

All the best,

Arthur


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]