On 1/21/21 2:28 PM, Anthony Sharp wrote:
Hi Jason,
I've finally completed my copyright assignment form. I've attached it
to this email for reference.
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.
The method I am using at the moment is the one Ranjit Mathew talks
about here: http://rmathew.com/articles/gcj/crpatch.html.
Interesting. Yeah, that page is obsolete since the move to git.
It's my fault kind of - the official GCC webpage
(https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html) explaining how to do it is called
'Read-write Git access' so I assumed it was only relevant for people
who have access to the repo, but I see that is not the case.
Those pages could definitely be more clearly organized.
I've tried the git way of doing it and I'm attaching a new patch file
that (hopefully) is better this time. Basically what I did was what
you suggested:
git pull
contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh
(make changes)
git add *
git gcc-commit-mklog
git gcc-commit-mklog --amend
Why two gcc-comit-mklog? That would generate the log entries twice.
You should also git gcc-verify at this point; for me, it complains about
some of your header lines in the log. Your author line needs to start
at the first column, and use "01" for January instead of just "1". The
other explanatory lines can be omitted, in favor of:
The commit message before the log entries should include your rationale
for the patch (e.g. the first two paragraphs of your initial email).
git format-patch -1 master
I also re-built the source just to make sure I hadn't messed anything
up. I re-ran the C++ regression tests using make check-c and make
check-c++. Whilst I did not do a before/after comparison of the
results, I checked the FAILs in gcc.sum and g++.sum and they all
looked like they had nothing to do with my code. All the code is the
same as before, so I'm thinking it should be fine (I just wanted to be
safe). Also checked against check_GNU_style.sh.
Assuming that's all fine, as for the code itself, there might well be
some tweaks that could make it better, and so if that is the case then
please let me know.
I'll look at the code soon.
Thanks,
Jason
