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.
>
> > -- >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
