On 1/8/21 7:38 PM, Anthony Sharp wrote:
Hi Jason,
Thank you!
To start with, do you have a copyright assignment on file or in the
works already?
Good point. I incorrectly assumed it would only be a minor
contribution copyright-wise. > Mr Edelsohn gave me a template which I've
now filled out and sent to ass...@gnu.org. I'm assuming I just need to
wait for them to send me the form. I'll update this thread when that's
sorted. In the meantime I've hopefully fixed some of the issues.
Great.
Second, your patch was mangled by word wrap so that it can't be applied
without manual repair. If you can't prevent word wrap in your mail
client, please send it as an attachment rather than inline.
Oh yes I see where it's gotten mangled now. I'm attaching it as a
.patch file (I assume that's okay).
Also, there are a few whitespace issues in the patch; please run
contrib/check_GNU_style.sh on the patch before submitting.
Should be all fixed now (there is one style issue left but it's a
false positive). Visual Studio Code was lying to me about what the
file looks like so if there are any more formatting issues please let
me know.
If you use contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh and then git
gcc-commit-mklog you don't need to touch ChangeLog files at all, just
adjust the generated ChangeLog entries in the git commit message. I
personally tend to commit first with a placeholder message and then use
git gcc-commit-mklog --amend to generate the ChangeLog entries.
Wouldn't that require read-write access? (Just from looking here
https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html.)
You don't need write access to the main repository to use these commands
on your local copy. One nice thing about git compared to svn is that
you don't need to touch the server for anything but push and pull.
Incidentally, how are you producing your patch? Maybe try git
format-patch instead.
Probably. Can you use sort/uniq/diff on the .sum testsuite output to
determine which passes are missing in the patched sources?
According to contrib/dg-cmp-results.sh ...
I get a bunch of these weird NA->PASSes (and vice-versa), for example:
PASS->NA: g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H module-cmi
(gcm.cache/home/anthony/Desktop/GCC/builds_and_source/source_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H.gcm)
NA->PASS: g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H module-cmi
(gcm.cache/home/anthony/Desktop/GCC/builds_and_source/source_pr17314/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H.gcm)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H module-cmi
(gcm.cache/home/anthony/Desktop/GCC/builds_and_source/source_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H.gcm)
NA->PASS: g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H module-cmi
(gcm.cache/home/anthony/Desktop/GCC/builds_and_source/source_pr17314/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/alias-1_a.H.gcm)
They're weird because I haven't actually touched those files (so I'm
assuming this is normal). There are about ~400 of those and they're
all .gcm files. They seem to balance out.
The modules code and tests are very new and volatile, I wouldn't worry
about them.
dr142.c reports:
NA->PASS: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings, line 11)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings, line 5)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings, line 7)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings, line 8)
NA->PASS: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++17 (test for warnings, line 11)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++17 (test for warnings, line 5)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++17 (test for warnings, line 7)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++17 (test for warnings, line 8)
NA->PASS: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++2a (test for warnings, line 11)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++2a (test for warnings, line 5)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++2a (test for warnings, line 7)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++2a (test for warnings, line 8)
NA->PASS: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 11)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 5)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 7)
PASS->NA: g++.dg/tc1/dr142.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 8)
These changes are because your patch changes that test to expect
warnings in different places.
In other words, there are 12 PASS->NAs and 4 NA->PASSes in this file,
meaning a net change of -8 (which explains why there are eight fewer).
My other changes also report PASS->NAs and vice-versa, but for those
the number of new NAs equals the number of new PASSes, so they don't
cause a change in quantity.
Thanks for being patient with me. I'll let you know when I've
completed the forms.
Also if I need to adjust the .patch to deal with the changelogs issue
please let me know.
Kind regards,
Anthony
