On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 04:38 Hongtao Liu, <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <
> libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> > >> > <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >> > > > Committed as obvious.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13"
> here. I
> > >> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > x86_field_alignment uses
> > >> > >
> > >> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic
> %T%> "
> > >> > > "fields changed in %{GCC
> 11.1%}",
> > >> > >
> > >> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks
> unusual
> > >> > > to me.
> > >> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable.
> > >> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%>
> instead.
> > >>
> > >> How about:
> > >>
> > >> Author: liuhongt <hongtao....@intel.com>
> > >> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800
> > >>
> > >> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic.
> > >>
> > >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >>
> > >> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust
> GCC
> > >> V13 to GCC 13.1.
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644
> > >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype,
> > >> const_tree totype)
> > >> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode
> > >> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode))
> > >> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef
> %<short%> "
> > >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of
> "
> > >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> %<short%>; "
> > >> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > >> }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1
> without the %< decoration?
> > I'll just remove that.
> pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch.
>
Thanks!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > -- >8 --
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix
> grammar.
> > >> > > > ---
> > >> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +-
> > >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644
> > >> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > >> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree
> fromtype, const_tree totype)
> > >> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef
> %<short%> "
> > >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > >> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> %<short%>; "
> > >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > >> > > > }
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > 2.41.0
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Marek
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > BR,
> > >> > Hongtao
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> BR,
> > >> Hongtao
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > BR,
> > Hongtao
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
>
