This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Introduce IntegerRange for options (PR driver/79659).
- From: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 14:43:39 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Introduce IntegerRange for options (PR driver/79659).
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <174c723b-d90d-9fc9-9935-7a0af7eb63b3@suse.cz> <e773a786-d71a-29f7-6b29-61bd0ba88e14@suse.cz> <4c2a43af-79e3-a3c6-69d6-8ebc00a3a150@suse.cz> <89254239-d19f-6e59-5bff-c71d9953117b@redhat.com>
On 06/28/2017 06:52 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 03:58 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Huh, I forgot to attach the patch.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> 0001-Introduce-IntegerRange-for-options-PR-driver-79659.patch
>>
>>
>> From bb89456e6cecfa9497cf8e265d2083e762d5bc3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz>
>> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:07:03 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] Introduce IntegerRange for options (PR driver/79659).
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>
>> PR driver/79659
>> * common.opt: Add IntegerRange to various options.
>> * opt-functions.awk (integer_range_info): New function.
>> * optc-gen.awk: Add integer_range_info to cl_options struct.
>> * opts-common.c (decode_cmdline_option): Handle
>> CL_ERR_INT_RANGE_ARG.
>> (cmdline_handle_error): Likewise.
>> * opts.c (print_filtered_help): Show valid interval in
>> when --help is provided.
>> * opts.h (struct cl_option): Add range_min and range_max fields.
>> * config/i386/i386.opt: Add IntegerRange for -mbranch-cost.
>>
>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>
>> PR driver/79659
>> * c.opt: Add IntegerRange to various options.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>
>> PR driver/79659
>> * g++.dg/opt/pr79659.C: New test.
> Presumably this never fully moved forward because it wasn't a regression?
>
> This looks quite reasonable to me. I'm not sure of the state of the
> prereqs and you may want/need to add IntegerRange checks on newly added
> options since this was first submitted.
>
> If the prereqs are ack'd, then as far as I'm concerned this is good to
> go and you're free to add any new IntegerRange checks you deem
> necessary/desirable.
>
> jeff
>
Thank you Jeff for looking at the patch. I've just re-tested the patch and
I'm going to install it.
Martin