This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/4] (v2) Generating patches from fix-it hints
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:56:51 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (v2) Generating patches from fix-it hints
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFiYyc0iFH9SWaWqRoQ_mXKb5QAXJETa-ir3XkQVEJv+HY1o0w@mail.gmail.com> <1472087632-20519-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com>
On 08/24/2016 07:13 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Here's a much less ambitious version of the patch kit, which
eliminates any attempt to write to the user's source
code (getting rid of edit_context::apply_changes and
-fdiagnostics-apply-fixits).
It implements -fdiagnostics-generate-patch. In so doing, it
tightens up the exact semantics of fix-its; see [1] for an
example of where that's useful.
I need review of at least patches 1 and 2 (which are unchanged
from v1 of the kit). I believe I can self-approve patches 3
and 4 as part of my "diagnostics maintainer" role; are they
acceptable to those who objected to the earlier kit? (now
that there's no attempt to write to source files).
Successfully bootstrapped®rtested the combination of the patches
on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk? (assuming individual bootstraps®rtesting)
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01751.html
My understanding was #1 was approved by Bernd. I think the update to #1
which removes the unnecessary explicit namespaces is fine.
Have you addressed the question/concern for #2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg02125.html
Jeff