Patchwork [wwwdocs] gcc-4.9/changes.html: Add quip about "#pragma GCC ivdep" and update Fortran section

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Tobias Burnus
Date Oct. 24, 2013, 7:44 p.m.
Message ID <526978A3.30708@net-b.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/286009/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Tobias Burnus - Oct. 24, 2013, 7:44 p.m.
Dear Gerald, dear all,

the patch adds a quip about the new "#pragma GCC ivdep" to the release 
notes. Additionally, I updated the Fortran section based on the changes 
accumulated on http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news

Any comments? Or is the patch OK?

Tobias
Gerald Pfeifer - Oct. 24, 2013, 10:07 p.m.
Hi Tobias,

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Any comments? Or is the patch OK?

thanks for doing this.

Index: htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html
===================================================================
+    <li>With the new <a
+    href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html"
+    ><code>#pragma GCC ivdep</code></a>, the user can assert that there are no
+    loop-carried dependencies which would prevent that consecutive iterations of
+    the following loop can be executed concurrently with SIMD (single instruction
+    multiple data) instructions.</li>

That would flow a bit nicer if you say "...prevent concurrent execution 
of consecutive iterations using..." or something like that, I believe? 

+        allocatable components of variables declared in the main program. The
+        Fortran standard states since 2008 explicitly that variables declared
+        in the Fortran main program automatically have the <code>SAVE</code>
+        attribute.</li>

How about "Since 2008 the Fortran standard..." or "Fortran 2008 and later 
standards..." ?

+      about <code>DO</code> loops with zero iterations.  This warning is now

Good catch!

The patch looks good if you consider my comments (which is not 
necessarily the same as following all of them ;-).

Gerald
Tobias Burnus - Oct. 25, 2013, 6:08 a.m.
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Any comments? Or is the patch OK?
> thanks for doing this.

Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link problem. 
The documentation is at
    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html

That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some 
script changes the link to:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html
which won't work. Try yourself at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html


Actually, a similar issue was reported at 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html

Does anyone know which script modifies those links?

Tobias
Tobias Burnus - Oct. 25, 2013, 8:32 p.m.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link 
> problem. The documentation is at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html
>
> That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some 
> script changes the link to:
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html
> which won't work. Try yourself at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
>
>
> Actually, a similar issue was reported at 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html

The reason for the broken links are the following lines in the 
/www/bin/preprocess script: 
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bin/preprocess.diff?r1=1.38&r2=1.39&f=h

Gerald, do you still know why you added it 9 years ago? The commit 
comment is "Use sed to work around makeinfo 4.7 brokenness."

I think "makeinfo" is still broken, but those pages do not seem to go 
through the preprocess script, which means that only links to that page 
will change to a hyphen, breaking the links.

Do you think it would be sensible to remove those lines again - or, 
alternatively, to run a similar script (e.g. "perl -i -e 's/_002d/-/g' 
`find onlinedocs -name \*.html`) on the onlinedocs/.

I think the impact of the the former on links is smaller. (One still 
needs to re-run the script on those files to restore the links.)

Tobias
Tobias Burnus - Nov. 30, 2013, 9:07 a.m.
On October 25, 2013 22:32, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link 
>> problem. The documentation is at
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html
>>
>> That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some 
>> script changes the link to:
>>    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html
>> which won't work. Try yourself at 
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
>>
>>
>> Actually, a similar issue was reported at 
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html
>
> The reason for the broken links are the following lines in the 
> /www/bin/preprocess script: 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bin/preprocess.diff?r1=1.38&r2=1.39&f=h
>
> Gerald, do you still know why you added it 9 years ago? The commit 
> comment is "Use sed to work around makeinfo 4.7 brokenness."
>
> I think "makeinfo" is still broken, but those pages do not seem to go 
> through the preprocess script, which means that only links to that 
> page will change to a hyphen, breaking the links.
>
> Do you think it would be sensible to remove those lines again - or, 
> alternatively, to run a similar script (e.g. "perl -i -e 's/_002d/-/g' 
> `find onlinedocs -name \*.html`) on the onlinedocs/.
>
> I think the impact of the the former on links is smaller. (One still 
> needs to re-run the script on those files to restore the links.)
>
> Tobias
>
Gerald Pfeifer - Dec. 2, 2013, 2:06 a.m.
Working on it.  I hope to have a patch within the next 48 hours.

Gerald

Patch

Index: htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -p -r1.28 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html	3 Oct 2013 14:15:36 -0000	1.28
+++ htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html	24 Oct 2013 19:44:28 -0000
@@ -84,6 +84,13 @@ 
 
     <b>test.C:2:46:</b> <b style='color:red'>error:</b> incomplete type &lsquo;<b>X&lt;100&gt;</b>&rsquo; used in nested name specifier
     </pre></li>
+
+    <li>With the new <a
+    href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html"
+    ><code>#pragma GCC ivdep</code></a>, the user can assert that there are no
+    loop-carried dependencies which would prevent that consecutive iterations of
+    the following loop can be executed concurrently with SIMD (single instruction
+    multiple data) instructions.</li>
   </ul>           
 
 <!--
@@ -173,13 +180,18 @@  void f(int n) {
           trying to mix old code with new code will usually give an error
           message.)</li>
       </ul></li>
+      <li>GNU Fortran no longer deallocates allocatable variables or
+        allocatable components of variables declared in the main program. The
+        Fortran standard states since 2008 explicitly that variables declared
+        in the Fortran main program automatically have the <code>SAVE</code>
+        attribute.</li>
     </ul></li>
     <li>The deprecated command-line option <code>-fno-whole-file</code>
       has been removed. (<code>-fwhole-file</code> is the default since
       GCC 4.6.) <code>-fwhole-file</code>/<code>-fno-whole-file</code>
       continue to be accepted but do not influence the code generation.</li>
     <li>The compiler no longer unconditionally warns
-      about <code>DO</code>loops with zero iterations.  This warning is now
+      about <code>DO</code> loops with zero iterations.  This warning is now
       controlled by the <code>-Wzerotrips</code> option, which is implied by
       <code>-Wall</code>.</li>
     <li>The new <code>NO_ARG_CHECK</code> attribute of the <a