Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 04:38 Hongtao Liu, wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> > >> > 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 %
> instead.
> > >>
> > >> How about:
> > >>
> > >> Author: liuhongt
> > >> 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
> % "
> > >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of
> "
> > >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> %; "
> > >> "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?
> > I'll just remove that.
> pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch.
>
Thanks!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > -- >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
> % "
> > >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > >> > > >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> %; "
> > >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > >> > > > }
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >/* Conversion allowed. */
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > 2.41.0
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Marek
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > BR,
> > >> > Hongtao
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> BR,
> > >> Hongtao
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > BR,
> > Hongtao
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
>
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++,
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> >> > 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 % instead.
> >>
> >> How about:
> >>
> >> Author: liuhongt
> >> 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 % "
> >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of "
> >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
> >> "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?
> I'll just remove that.
pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > > -- >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
> >> > > > % "
> >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> >> > > >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> >> > > > %; "
> >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> >> > > > }
> >> > > >
> >> > > >/* Conversion allowed. */
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > 2.41.0
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Marek
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > BR,
> >> > Hongtao
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> BR,
> >> Hongtao
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
--
BR,
Hongtao
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++,
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
>> > 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 % instead.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Author: liuhongt
>> 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 % "
>> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
>> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of "
>> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
>> "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?
I'll just remove that.
>
>
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > > -- >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 % "
>> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
>> > > >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
>> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
>> > > > }
>> > > >
>> > > >/* Conversion allowed. */
>> > > > --
>> > > > 2.41.0
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Marek
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > BR,
>> > Hongtao
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BR,
>> Hongtao
--
BR,
Hongtao
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++,
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> > 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 % instead.
>
> How about:
>
> Author: liuhongt
> 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 % "
> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of "
> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
> "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
> % "
> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > > >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and
> %; "
> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >/* Conversion allowed. */
> > > > --
> > > > 2.41.0
> > > >
> > >
> > > Marek
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > BR,
> > Hongtao
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
>
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> 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 % instead.
How about:
Author: liuhongt
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 % "
- "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
+ "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of "
"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
"an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
}
> >
> > > -- >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 % "
> > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> > >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
> > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > > }
> > >
> > >/* Conversion allowed. */
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0
> > >
> >
> > Marek
> >
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
--
BR,
Hongtao
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
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 % "
> > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
> >"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
> > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> > }
> >
> >/* Conversion allowed. */
> > --
> > 2.41.0
> >
>
> Marek
>
--
BR,
Hongtao
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> 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.
I usually say "GCC 13" when referring to a major release.
("GCC V13" definitely is very unusual.)
Gerald
Re: [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
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.
> -- >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 % "
> "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of "
>"implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; "
> - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here");
> }
>
>/* Conversion allowed. */
> --
> 2.41.0
>
Marek
[committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic
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? -- >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 % " "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and %; " -"a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); +"an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); } /* Conversion allowed. */ -- 2.41.0
