On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:41:21 +0200
Pierre Vittet wrote:
> Thoses two patchs have already been approved (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01159.html).
>
> I haven't write permission currently, could someone commit them?
>
> ChangeLogs have to be applied on gcc/c-family/ChangeL
Thoses two patchs have already been approved (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01159.html).
I haven't write permission currently, could someone commit them?
ChangeLogs have to be applied on gcc/c-family/ChangeLog .
Thanks !
Pierre Vittet
Index: gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Pierre Vittet wrote:
> I guess this is better now.
>
> Changelog (gcc/c-family):
>
> 2011-06-10 Pierre Vittet
>
> * c-pragma.h (pragma_handler_1arg, pragma_handler_2arg): New handler.
> (gen_pragma_handler): New union.
> (internal_pragma_handler): New type.
>
I guess this is better now.
Changelog (gcc/c-family):
2011-06-10 Pierre Vittet
* c-pragma.h (pragma_handler_1arg, pragma_handler_2arg): New handler.
(gen_pragma_handler): New union.
(internal_pragma_handler): New type.
(c_register_pragma_with_data,
c_register_pragma_with_e
Please make sure that with each revision you include *both* the patch
*and* the ChangeLog entries so they can be reviewed together. The last
version of the ChangeLog entries that I saw still needed more work to
follow the normal style for ChangeLog entries.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourc
thanks!
I formatted as you requested.
I cannot commit myself as I haven't a "write after approval" status,
maye you can do it, or I can wait my GSOC mentor, Basile Starynkevitch
to do this (He mights be busy for a few days).
Pierre Vittet
Index: gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c
Thanks for this patch. You need to adjust the formatting of the comments
to match the existing style (in particular, indentation of second and
subsequent lines of comments, and watch out for spelling errors (exemple,
abstact). For a struct, the explanations of individual fields should be
in t
You are right, the new version is in the diff.
The diff for the test hasn't changed and is in the previous mail.
In the previous version of the file, the registered_pragmas was not
better freed. I don't know if it is really important (it would need a
callback at the end of the front-end passes)
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:26:39 +0200
Pierre Vittet wrote:
> I have written a test for this patch and run it (it works correctly). I
> guess there is no reason why it should not be accepted now.
> To recap, this patch add a void * data field to the pragma handler,
> allowing to pass extra data. If
I have written a test for this patch and run it (it works correctly). I
guess there is no reason why it should not be accepted now.
To recap, this patch add a void * data field to the pragma handler,
allowing to pass extra data. If we want to use this field, we need to
use the function c_registe
Hello,
I am sorry, my editor (vim) was not correctly configure (I used
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-03/msg00425.html to improve it). I guess
it is ok now.
If I still have issue, I will post on the mailing list if there is some
tips for vim otherway I will use Emacs (I am not very comfortable
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:31:25 +0200
Pierre Vittet wrote:
> Thank you for your answer!
>
> I send you a new patch
> I have corrected the errors you raised.
>
> I have make my patch compatible with the old use of c_register_pragma
> and c_register_pragma_with_expansion.
I find the patch quite in
Thank you for your answer!
I send you a new patch
I have corrected the errors you raised.
I have make my patch compatible with the old use of c_register_pragma
and c_register_pragma_with_expansion.
I don't know what is the best solution, maybe changing every call
c_register_pragma allows to
> "Pierre" == Pierre writes:
Pierre> I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter
Pierre> which is a void *, allowing to give extra datas to the handler. I
Pierre> think this data field might be of general use: we can have condition
Pierre> or data at register time that
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:54:38 +0200
Pierre wrote:
> This patch is about the pragmas.
>
> In c-family/c-pragma.h, we declare a pragma_handler which is a function
> accepting cpp_reader as parameter.
>
> I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter which
> is a void *, allow
This patch is about the pragmas.
In c-family/c-pragma.h, we declare a pragma_handler which is a function
accepting cpp_reader as parameter.
I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter which
is a void *, allowing to give extra datas to the handler. I think this
data fiel
16 matches
Mail list logo
