> OK, I'll start with -alt then, thanks. Andrew is exactly correct, contracts-jac-alt is still the current branch we're focusing our upstreaming efforts on.
It's trailing upstream master by a fair bit at this point. I'll get a merge pushed shortly. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help review along! On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/3/20 12:07 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > > > > > Attached is a new squashed revision of the patch sans ChangeLogs. > The > > > current work is now being done on github: > > > https://github.com/lock3/gcc/tree/contracts-jac-alt > > <https://github.com/lock3/gcc/tree/contracts-jac-alt> > > > > I'm starting to review this now, sorry for the delay. Is this still > the > > branch you want me to consider for GCC 11? I notice that the > > -constexpr > > and -mangled-config branches are newer. > > > > > > I think so. Jeff can answer more authoritatively. I know we had one set > > of changes to the design (how contracts) work aimed at improving the > > debugging experience for violated contracts. I'm not sure if that's in > > the jac-alt branch though. > > > > The -constexpr branch checks for trivially satisfied contracts (e.g., > > [[assert: true]]) and issues warnings. It also preemptively checks > > preconditions against constant function arguments. It's probably worth > > reviewing that separately. > > > > I'm not sure the -manged-config branch is worth considering for merging > > at this point. It's trying to solve a problem that might not be worth > > solving. > > OK, I'll start with -alt then, thanks. > > > Out of curiosity, are you concerned that future versions of contracts > > might have considerably different syntax or configurability? I'd hope it > > wouldn't, but who knows where SG21 is going :) > > Not particularly; I figure that most of the implementation would be > unaffected. > > Jason > >
