Message ID | 1376251048-13828-1-git-send-email-adam@jessamine.co.uk |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Thank you for this patch, Adam. Adam Butcher <adam@jessamine.co.uk> a écrit: > * pt.c: Grammar fix in comments ("it's" to "its"). FWIW, this change seems to fall under the obvious rule and thus, ought to be committed. > > --- > gcc/cp/pt.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c > index ce899ef..78b7a97 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c > @@ -1986,7 +1986,7 @@ determine_specialization (tree template_id, > tree decl_arg_types; > > /* This is an ordinary member function. However, since > - we're here, we can assume it's enclosing class is a > + we're here, we can assume its enclosing class is a > template class. For example, > > template <typename T> struct S { void f(); }; > @@ -4337,7 +4337,7 @@ check_default_tmpl_args (tree decl, tree parms, bool is_primary, > || DECL_INITIALIZED_IN_CLASS_P (decl))) > /* We already checked these parameters when the template was > declared, so there's no need to do it again now. This function > - was defined in class scope, but we're processing it's body now > + was defined in class scope, but we're processing its body now > that the class is complete. */ > return true; > > @@ -7555,7 +7555,7 @@ lookup_template_class_1 (tree d1, tree arglist, tree in_decl, tree context, > the one of #0. > > When we encounter #1, we want to store the partial instantiation > - of M (template<class T> S<int>::M<T>) in it's CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE. > + of M (template<class T> S<int>::M<T>) in its CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE. > > For all cases other than this "explicit specialization of member of a > class template", we just want to store the most general template into
On 08/12/2013 09:06 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > FWIW, this change seems to fall under the obvious rule and thus, ought > to be committed. Agreed. But I don't see Adam's name in MAINTAINERS; do you still need to get set up for write after approval? Jason
On 12.08.2013 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 08/12/2013 09:06 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: >> FWIW, this change seems to fall under the obvious rule and thus, >> ought >> to be committed. > > Agreed. But I don't see Adam's name in MAINTAINERS; do you still > need to get set up for write after approval? > Yes, I must confess up until now I hadn't considered it. I've just been submitting patches from a clone of http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git. Are you happy to approve this? If so I'll set up a sourceware account at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi and switch to working with a git-svn clone of the main repo using svn+ssh. Cheers, Adam
On 08/12/2013 04:52 PM, Adam Butcher wrote: > Yes, I must confess up until now I hadn't considered it. I've just been > submitting patches from a clone of http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git. Are > you happy to approve this? Yes. > If so I'll set up a sourceware account at > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi and switch to working with > a git-svn clone of the main repo using svn+ssh. git svn clone takes forever on the gcc repo; much better to connect git-svn to your existing repository. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror#Commit_upstream_.28git-svn.29 Jason
On 12.08.2013 22:03, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 08/12/2013 04:52 PM, Adam Butcher wrote: >> Yes, I must confess up until now I hadn't considered it. I've just >> been >> submitting patches from a clone of http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git. >> Are >> you happy to approve this? > > Yes. > Cheers. Submitted. >> If so I'll set up a sourceware account at >> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi and switch to working >> with >> a git-svn clone of the main repo using svn+ssh. > > git svn clone takes forever on the gcc repo; much better to connect > git-svn to your existing repository. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror#Commit_upstream_.28git-svn.29 > I was intending to git-svn fetch only 'trunk' from a few thousand revisions back from HEAD, not the whole repo (my response did not make this clear). I had not seen that wiki page before though. Useful. Thanks, Adam
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c index ce899ef..78b7a97 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c @@ -1986,7 +1986,7 @@ determine_specialization (tree template_id, tree decl_arg_types; /* This is an ordinary member function. However, since - we're here, we can assume it's enclosing class is a + we're here, we can assume its enclosing class is a template class. For example, template <typename T> struct S { void f(); }; @@ -4337,7 +4337,7 @@ check_default_tmpl_args (tree decl, tree parms, bool is_primary, || DECL_INITIALIZED_IN_CLASS_P (decl))) /* We already checked these parameters when the template was declared, so there's no need to do it again now. This function - was defined in class scope, but we're processing it's body now + was defined in class scope, but we're processing its body now that the class is complete. */ return true; @@ -7555,7 +7555,7 @@ lookup_template_class_1 (tree d1, tree arglist, tree in_decl, tree context, the one of #0. When we encounter #1, we want to store the partial instantiation - of M (template<class T> S<int>::M<T>) in it's CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE. + of M (template<class T> S<int>::M<T>) in its CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE. For all cases other than this "explicit specialization of member of a class template", we just want to store the most general template into