Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 zack@gcc.gnu.org wrote:

> CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
> Module name:	gcc
> Branch: 	gcc-3_3-branch
> Changes by:	zack@gcc.gnu.org	2003-04-06 00:20:15
> 
> Modified files:
> 	gcc            : ChangeLog cfgrtl.c 
> 	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
> Added files:
> 	gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile: 20030405-1.c 
> 
> Log message:
> 	PR optimization/10024
> 	* cfgrtl.c (force_nonfallthru_and_redirect): If e is the edge
> 	we want, use it.
> 	* testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20030405-1.c: New test.
> 
> Patches:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.406&r2=1.16114.2.407
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cfgrtl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.61.2.4&r2=1.61.2.5
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.2261.2.134&r2=1.2261.2.135
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20030405-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.2.1

This commit brings a change of ChangeLog date format in old entries in
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog over to the 3.3 branch.  Why was this included as
part of an unrelated commit, was the original mainline change mentioned on
the lists (I may have missed it), and why only some ChangeLogs but not
e.g. gcc/f/ChangeLog (which still has the magic comments at the bottom so
emacs uses the old format by default when adding entries to it)?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[Zack Weinberg]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> This commit brings a change of ChangeLog date format in old entries in
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog over to the 3.3 branch.  Why was this included as
> part of an unrelated commit, was the original mainline change mentioned on
> the lists (I may have missed it), and why only some ChangeLogs but not
> e.g. gcc/f/ChangeLog (which still has the magic comments at the bottom so
> emacs uses the old format by default when adding entries to it)?

I have an emacs write-contents-hook for change logs which
canonicalizes the whole file on the new date format.  This was an
experiment and if people don't like it I'll stop using it.

zw

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:

Zack> I have an emacs write-contents-hook for change logs which
Zack> canonicalizes the whole file on the new date format.  This was an
Zack> experiment and if people don't like it I'll stop using it.

	Please do not change past ChangeLog entries and please correct the
files you already have changed.  This is not a change that you
unilaterally should decide.

David

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 04:48:10PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:
> 
> Zack> I have an emacs write-contents-hook for change logs which
> Zack> canonicalizes the whole file on the new date format.  This was an
> Zack> experiment and if people don't like it I'll stop using it.
> 
> 	Please do not change past ChangeLog entries and please correct the
> files you already have changed.  This is not a change that you
> unilaterally should decide.

Perhaps not unilaterally, but I would hope the SC would permit rewriting
the date stamps to be the canonical form.  Demanding a strict format in
changelogs (as the precious GNU coding standards do) is useless if we
don't adhere to it.

This change would allow for far easier parsing of changelogs.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[Mike Stump]

On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 01:43 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> This commit brings a change of ChangeLog date format in old entries in
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog over to the 3.3 branch.  Why was this 
>> included as
>> part of an unrelated commit, was the original mainline change 
>> mentioned on
>> the lists (I may have missed it), and why only some ChangeLogs but not
>> e.g. gcc/f/ChangeLog (which still has the magic comments at the 
>> bottom so
>> emacs uses the old format by default when adding entries to it)?
>
> I have an emacs write-contents-hook for change logs which
> canonicalizes the whole file on the new date format.  This was an
> experiment and if people don't like it I'll stop using it.

I've been known to canonicalize whole ChangeLog files (in various ways) 
before.  I think it is good, but maybe that's just me.  gcc/f can 
change...  :-)  Personally, I would like to see them all in the same 
(new) format.

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Mike Stump writes:

Mike> I've been known to canonicalize whole ChangeLog files (in various ways) 
Mike> before.  I think it is good, but maybe that's just me.  gcc/f can 
Mike> change...  :-)  Personally, I would like to see them all in the same 
Mike> (new) format.

	I simply am suggesting that this should be discussed before
implemented.  Also, if we reformat, we should ensure that all new entries
follow the format instead of periodically reformatting.

David

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[Joe Buck]

Zack Weinberg writes:
> > Zack> I have an emacs write-contents-hook for change logs which
> > Zack> canonicalizes the whole file on the new date format.  This was an
> > Zack> experiment and if people don't like it I'll stop using it.
 
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 04:48:10PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > 	Please do not change past ChangeLog entries and please correct the
> > files you already have changed.  This is not a change that you
> > unilaterally should decide.
 
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 07:42:02PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> Perhaps not unilaterally, but I would hope the SC would permit rewriting
> the date stamps to be the canonical form.  Demanding a strict format in
> changelogs (as the precious GNU coding standards do) is useless if we
> don't adhere to it.

I don't think that there is any real SC objection to a consistent ChangeLog;
rather, it's expected that even people with global write privilege will
mention that they want to do things like this before, rather than after,
doing them.  The SC only needs to get involved if a battle results and
there is no consensus.

(Unless I am misunderstanding and David E. really wants us never to change
existing ChangeLog entries?)

 

Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog cfgrtl.c testsuite/ChangeLog ...

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Joe Buck writes:

Joe> I don't think that there is any real SC objection to a consistent ChangeLog;
Joe> rather, it's expected that even people with global write privilege will
Joe> mention that they want to do things like this before, rather than after,
Joe> doing them.  The SC only needs to get involved if a battle results and
Joe> there is no consensus.

Joe> (Unless I am misunderstanding and David E. really wants us never to change
Joe> existing ChangeLog entries?)

	Yes, exactly.  Sorry for not being clearer.

David