* [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic @ 2023-08-07 21:12 Jonathan Wakely 2023-08-07 21:22 ` Marek Polacek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2023-08-07 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libstdc++, gcc-patches Committed as obvious. Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? -- >8 -- gcc/ChangeLog: * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); } /* Conversion allowed. */ -- 2.41.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-07 21:12 [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic Jonathan Wakely @ 2023-08-07 21:22 ` Marek Polacek 2023-08-22 14:08 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2023-08-22 23:28 ` Hongtao Liu 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Marek Polacek @ 2023-08-07 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: libstdc++, gcc-patches On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > Committed as obvious. > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? x86_field_alignment uses inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual to me. > -- >8 -- > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. > --- > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > } > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > -- > 2.41.0 > Marek ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-07 21:22 ` Marek Polacek @ 2023-08-22 14:08 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2023-08-22 23:28 ` Hongtao Liu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2023-08-22 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I >> don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? >> >> Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > x86_field_alignment uses > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual > to me. I usually say "GCC 13" when referring to a major release. ("GCC V13" definitely is very unusual.) Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-07 21:22 ` Marek Polacek 2023-08-22 14:08 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2023-08-22 23:28 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-23 5:15 ` Hongtao Liu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-22 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Committed as obvious. > > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > > x86_field_alignment uses > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual > to me. %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. > > > -- >8 -- > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. > > --- > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > } > > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > > -- > > 2.41.0 > > > > Marek > -- BR, Hongtao ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-22 23:28 ` Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-23 5:15 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-23 7:02 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-23 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Committed as obvious. > > > > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > > > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > > > > x86_field_alignment uses > > > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " > > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", > > > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual > > to me. > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead. How about: Author: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. gcc/ChangeLog: * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1. diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of " "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); } > > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. > > > --- > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > > } > > > > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > > > -- > > > 2.41.0 > > > > > > > Marek > > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao -- BR, Hongtao ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-23 5:15 ` Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-23 7:02 ` Jonathan Wakely 2023-08-23 8:08 ` Hongtao Liu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2023-08-23 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongtao Liu; +Cc: Marek Polacek, Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3326 bytes --] On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ > > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via > Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > Committed as obvious. > > > > > > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I > > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > > > > > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > > > > > > x86_field_alignment uses > > > > > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> > " > > > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", > > > > > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual > > > to me. > > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. > looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead. > > How about: > > Author: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com> > Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 > > Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC > V13 to GCC 13.1. > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, > const_tree totype) > || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode > && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of " > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > } > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 without the %< decoration? > > > > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. > > > > --- > > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree > fromtype, const_tree totype) > > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef > %<short%> " > > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and > %<short%>; " > > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > > > > -- > > > > 2.41.0 > > > > > > > > > > Marek > > > > > > > > > -- > > BR, > > Hongtao > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-23 7:02 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2023-08-23 8:08 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-24 3:38 ` Hongtao Liu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-23 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Marek Polacek, Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ >> > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: >> > > > Committed as obvious. >> > > > >> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I >> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? >> > > > >> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? >> > > >> > > x86_field_alignment uses >> > > >> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " >> > > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", >> > > >> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual >> > > to me. >> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. >> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead. >> >> How about: >> >> Author: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com> >> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 >> >> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC >> V13 to GCC 13.1. >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, >> const_tree totype) >> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode >> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) >> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of " >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " >> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); >> } > > > > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 without the %< decoration? I'll just remove that. > > > >> >> > > >> > > > -- >8 -- >> > > > >> > > > gcc/ChangeLog: >> > > > >> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. >> > > > --- >> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 >> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc >> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) >> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " >> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ >> > > > -- >> > > > 2.41.0 >> > > > >> > > >> > > Marek >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > BR, >> > Hongtao >> >> >> >> -- >> BR, >> Hongtao -- BR, Hongtao ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-23 8:08 ` Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-24 3:38 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-24 6:27 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-24 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Marek Polacek, Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ > >> > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> > > > Committed as obvious. > >> > > > > >> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" here. I > >> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > >> > > > > >> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > >> > > > >> > > x86_field_alignment uses > >> > > > >> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic %T%> " > >> > > "fields changed in %{GCC 11.1%}", > >> > > > >> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks unusual > >> > > to me. > >> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. > >> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead. > >> > >> How about: > >> > >> Author: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com> > >> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 > >> > >> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. > >> > >> gcc/ChangeLog: > >> > >> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC > >> V13 to GCC 13.1. > >> > >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 > >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, > >> const_tree totype) > >> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode > >> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) > >> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of " > >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > >> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > >> } > > > > > > > > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 without the %< decoration? > I'll just remove that. pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch. > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > -- >8 -- > >> > > > > >> > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > >> > > > > >> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix grammar. > >> > > > --- > >> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > > > >> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > >> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > >> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, const_tree totype) > >> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> " > >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > >> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; " > >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > >> > > > } > >> > > > > >> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > >> > > > -- > >> > > > 2.41.0 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Marek > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > BR, > >> > Hongtao > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> BR, > >> Hongtao > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao -- BR, Hongtao ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic 2023-08-24 3:38 ` Hongtao Liu @ 2023-08-24 6:27 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2023-08-24 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongtao Liu; +Cc: Marek Polacek, Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4301 bytes --] On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 04:38 Hongtao Liu, <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, < > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ > > >> > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via > Gcc-patches wrote: > > >> > > > Committed as obvious. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" > here. I > > >> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > > >> > > > > >> > > x86_field_alignment uses > > >> > > > > >> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic > %T%> " > > >> > > "fields changed in %{GCC > 11.1%}", > > >> > > > > >> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks > unusual > > >> > > to me. > > >> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. > > >> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> > instead. > > >> > > >> How about: > > >> > > >> Author: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com> > > >> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 > > >> > > >> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. > > >> > > >> gcc/ChangeLog: > > >> > > >> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust > GCC > > >> V13 to GCC 13.1. > > >> > > >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 > > >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, > > >> const_tree totype) > > >> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode > > >> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) > > >> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef > %<short%> " > > >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of > " > > >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and > %<short%>; " > > >> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 > without the %< decoration? > > I'll just remove that. > pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch. > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- >8 -- > > >> > > > > > >> > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix > grammar. > > >> > > > --- > > >> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > > >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > > >> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree > fromtype, const_tree totype) > > >> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef > %<short%> " > > >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > >> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and > %<short%>; " > > >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > > >> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > 2.41.0 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Marek > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > BR, > > >> > Hongtao > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> BR, > > >> Hongtao > > > > > > > > -- > > BR, > > Hongtao > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-24 6:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-08-07 21:12 [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic Jonathan Wakely 2023-08-07 21:22 ` Marek Polacek 2023-08-22 14:08 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2023-08-22 23:28 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-23 5:15 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-23 7:02 ` Jonathan Wakely 2023-08-23 8:08 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-24 3:38 ` Hongtao Liu 2023-08-24 6:27 ` Jonathan Wakely
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).