Patchwork gengtype patch removing location_s

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Basile Starynkevitch
Date Oct. 19, 2010, 6:56 a.m.
Message ID <20101019085617.7384e0af.basile@starynkevitch.net>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/68275/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Basile Starynkevitch - Oct. 19, 2010, 6:56 a.m.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:48:02 +0300
Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW grep shows that location_s is mentioned in a comment in
> libcpp/include/input.h, bonus points if you take care of that too :)

It is not libcpp/include/input.h but libcpp/include/line-map.h
where I dared commiting the following change (only on comments)


### libcpp/ChangeLog entry
2010-10-19  Basile Starynkevitch  <basile@starynkevitch.net>
	* line-map.h (source_location): Remove obsolete comment
	mentioning location_s.
###

I hope that svn commit-ting removing an obsolete comment in this file is
permitted with your previous OK.

Committed revision 165680.
Laurynas Biveinis - Oct. 19, 2010, 7:06 a.m.
2010/10/19 Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>:
> 2010-10-19  Basile Starynkevitch  <basile@starynkevitch.net>
>        * line-map.h (source_location): Remove obsolete comment
>        mentioning location_s.

> I hope that svn commit-ting removing an obsolete comment in this file is
> permitted with your previous OK.

No it's not, my OK is not that powerful and I should have been more
explicit about that. However I believe this particular patch is
obvious.
Basile Starynkevitch - Oct. 19, 2010, 7:10 a.m.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:06:44 +0300
Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/10/19 Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>:
> > 2010-10-19  Basile Starynkevitch  <basile@starynkevitch.net>
> >        * line-map.h (source_location): Remove obsolete comment
> >        mentioning location_s.
> 
> > I hope that svn commit-ting removing an obsolete comment in this file is
> > permitted with your previous OK.
> 
> No it's not, my OK is not that powerful and I should have been more
> explicit about that. However I believe this particular patch is
> obvious.

Should I undo my change? If some people want that, please tell! I'm
explicitly CC-ing Diego & Tromey...

But I also believe this particular patch is obvious. (But I am not sure
understanding what obvious means).

Cheers
Laurynas Biveinis - Oct. 19, 2010, 7:20 a.m.
2010/10/19 Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>:
> Should I undo my change? If some people want that, please tell! I'm
> explicitly CC-ing Diego & Tromey...

IMHO you don't have to do anything about it now. It's only a two-line
outdated comment removal. And if I'm wrong, then the maintainers will
ask you to revert or whatever.
Dave Korn - Oct. 19, 2010, 7:52 a.m.
On 19/10/2010 08:10, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:06:44 +0300 Laurynas Biveinis
> <laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 2010/10/19 Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>:
>>> 2010-10-19  Basile Starynkevitch  <basile@starynkevitch.net> *
>>> line-map.h (source_location): Remove obsolete comment mentioning
>>> location_s. I hope that svn commit-ting removing an obsolete comment in
>>> this file is permitted with your previous OK.
>> No it's not, my OK is not that powerful and I should have been more 
>> explicit about that. However I believe this particular patch is obvious.
> 
> Should I undo my change? If some people want that, please tell! I'm 
> explicitly CC-ing Diego & Tromey...

  I don't think so, it really is obvious, and "obvious" means no approval
needed to commit.

> But I also believe this particular patch is obvious. (But I am not sure 
> understanding what obvious means).

  It is defined at http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html, although the term used
there is "Free for all":

> The following changes can be made by everyone with SVN write access:
> 
> Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments and
> similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to gcc-patches. We don't
> want to get overly anal-retentive about checkin policies.
> 
> Similarly, no outside approval is needed to revert a patch that you checked
> in.
> 
> Importing files maintained outside the tree from their official versions.
> 
> Creating and using a branch for development, including outside the parts of
> the compiler one maintains, provided that changes on the branch have
> copyright assignments on file. Merging such developments back to the
> mainline still needs approval in the usual way.

  "Fixes for obvious typos in  ... comments" covers removing an obsolete
comment, I'm sure nobody would object.

    cheers,
      DaveK
Tom Tromey - Oct. 19, 2010, 3:44 p.m.
>>>>> "Basile" == Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net> writes:

Basile> It is not libcpp/include/input.h but libcpp/include/line-map.h
Basile> where I dared commiting the following change (only on comments)

For avoidance of doubt, this is ok.
This comment should have been deleted long ago.

Tom

Patch

Index: libcpp/include/line-map.h
===================================================================
--- libcpp/include/line-map.h	(revision 165678)
+++ libcpp/include/line-map.h	(working copy)
@@ -39,8 +39,6 @@  enum lc_reason {LC_ENTER = 0, LC_LEAVE, LC_RENAME,
 typedef unsigned int linenum_type;
 
 /* A logical line/column number, i.e. an "index" into a line_map.  */
-/* Long-term, we want to use this to replace struct location_s (in
input.h),
-   and effectively typedef source_location location_t.  */
 typedef unsigned int source_location;