On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use %<GCC 13.1%> instead.
>
> How about:
>
> Author: liuhongt <hongtao....@intel.com>
> Date:   Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800
>
>     Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic.
>
>     gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>             * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust GCC
>             V13 to GCC 13.1.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype,
> const_tree totype)
>           || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode
>               && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode))
>         warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef %<short%> "
> -               "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> +               "to real %<__bf16%> since %<GCC 13.1%>, be careful of "
>                  "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %<short%>; "
>                  "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>      }
>


Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1
without the %< decoration?




> > >
> > > > -- >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
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
>

Reply via email to