| Message ID | 1374163428.31223.54.camel@surprise |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 07/18/2013 10:03 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup was removed in r158622: > > 2010-04-21 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> > [...snip...] > * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Remove pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup. > > but that commit left the declaration still present in tree-pass.h > > This patch removes the redundant decl. > > Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu This is fine. Thanks. > > OK for trunk? [this one seems obvious to me, but doesn't quite match > the letter of the rules in "Free for all" in > http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html , and I'm new here, hence I'm asking > out of an abundance of caution :) ] Yea. The steering committee is likely to revamp the wording to make this kind of obvious fix OK in the future. jeff
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/18/2013 10:03 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup was removed in r158622: > > > > 2010-04-21 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> > > [...snip...] > > * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Remove pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup. > > > > but that commit left the declaration still present in tree-pass.h > > > > This patch removes the redundant decl. > > > > Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > This is fine. Thanks. Thanks; committed to svn trunk as r201035. > > OK for trunk? [this one seems obvious to me, but doesn't quite match > > the letter of the rules in "Free for all" in > > http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html , and I'm new here, hence I'm asking > > out of an abundance of caution :) ] > Yea. The steering committee is likely to revamp the wording to make > this kind of obvious fix OK in the future. One other thing that's unclear on that page: are there any recommendations on what the commit message should be? In the example ("Commit the changes to the central repository") you appear to have trimmed the top line containing date and name from the ChangeLog entry, and I've (mostly) emulated that in my commits, but looking at "svn log" there seems to be some variety in what people do. Presumably the log message should contain the ChangeLog fragment(s), with multiple ChangeLogs indicated by path. Is it OK to have extra info? When I've been using git in my own local branches I've preferred to also put a one-line summary at the top of the commit above the ChangeLog fragment(s), since it makes for more readable entries in the git log. For more complicated changes, I also like to place some higher-level information about the change near the top of the logs (though I wouldn't want to impose that requirement on other devs). Perhaps also a URL to relevant discussions on the gcc-patches archive would also be appropriate? (and again optional, to avoid adding to the red tape). [to repeat my rant from Cauldron, you wouldn't write code comments like this: /* Double x. */ x *= 2; but if it warrants a comment, you'd have something like: /* Increase the buffer size, whilst avoiding O(n^2) copying costs on repeated growth. */ x *= 2; or somesuch - comments should describe the *intent* of change, rather than merely an English description. Why do GNU ChangeLogs seems to favor the latter approach?] (Sorry if the above turned into a rant again) Dave
On 07/18/2013 10:53 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > In the example ("Commit the changes to the central repository") you > appear to have trimmed the top line containing date and name from the > ChangeLog entry, and I've (mostly) emulated that in my commits, but > looking at "svn log" there seems to be some variety in what people do. > > Presumably the log message should contain the ChangeLog fragment(s), > with multiple ChangeLogs indicated by path. I think most folks just use their ChangeLog entries as-is. I suspect that if we move forward with some kind of "extract ChangeLogs from the repository' that we'll need to formalize this a bit better. That's certainly been the case for other projects that have dropped manual ChangeLogs in favor of extracting them from the repository. > > or somesuch - comments should describe the *intent* of change, rather > than merely an English description. Why do GNU ChangeLogs seems to > favor the latter approach?] > It's always been the policy that code comments should carry the intent of the change while the ChangeLog just notes what changed. As Jim W. mentioned in the steering committee bof, there was a requirement that a log of changes be kept. In the early days, GCC didn't use any version control system and the ChangeLog was the only way to track what had changed. Jeff
From da20870a2220873df67067fcae9a00bace75d376 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:27:36 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Remove redundant decl of pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup --- gcc/tree-pass.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/tree-pass.h b/gcc/tree-pass.h index b8c59a7..547f355 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-pass.h +++ b/gcc/tree-pass.h @@ -383,7 +383,6 @@ extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_cp; extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_reference; extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_pure_const; extern struct simple_ipa_opt_pass pass_ipa_pta; -extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup; extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_lto_finish_out; extern struct simple_ipa_opt_pass pass_ipa_tm; extern struct ipa_opt_pass_d pass_ipa_profile; -- 1.7.11.7
pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup was removed in r158622: 2010-04-21 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> [...snip...] * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Remove pass_ipa_lto_wpa_fixup. but that commit left the declaration still present in tree-pass.h This patch removes the redundant decl. Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu OK for trunk? [this one seems obvious to me, but doesn't quite match the letter of the rules in "Free for all" in http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html , and I'm new here, hence I'm asking out of an abundance of caution :) ] Thanks Dave