This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Potentially merging the transactional-memory branch into mainline.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:05:49AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >Could you please fix up whitespace in the patch, at least leading tabs
> >and trailing whitespace?
> >On the patch it is easy to do, something like:
> >sed 's/^+\([\t]*\) \{64\}/+\1\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t/;s/^+\([\t]*\) \{32\}/+\1\t\t\t\t/;s/^+\([\t]*\) \{16\}/+\1\t\t/;s/^+\([\t]*\) \{8\}/+\1\t/;s/^+\(.*[^[:blank:]]\)[[:blank:]]\+$/+\1/;s/^+[[:blank:]]\+$/+/' patch> patch.whitespace
> >and then interdiff patch patch.whitespace> whitespace
> >and review that diff and if appropriate commit to branch before merging?
> >
> > Jakub
>
> [sorry for the duplicate, replying all this time]
>
> Is this necessary for the entire patch, or just the parts that touch
> existing parts of the toolchain. For example, do you want me to run
> this on libitm/, etc? I'm really trying to minimize changes (even
> whitespace stuff) at the last minute, but if you think it's
> imperative, I will do so.
Well, just IMO now is the last time when doing that is possible.
We don't want to do such large changes on the trunk and really the amount of
whitespace issues in the patch is huge.
The script changes only leading and trailing whitespace, so it shouldn't
make any difference to code generation, and you can verify with diff -upb
that there are no non-whitespace changes.
Jakub