On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:41:21 +0200
Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
Thoses two patchs have already been approved (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01159.html).
I haven't write permission currently, could someone commit them?
ChangeLogs have to be applied on
thanks!
I formatted as you requested.
I cannot commit myself as I haven't a write after approval status,
maye you can do it, or I can wait my GSOC mentor, Basile Starynkevitch
to do this (He mights be busy for a few days).
Pierre Vittet
Index: gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c
Please make sure that with each revision you include *both* the patch
*and* the ChangeLog entries so they can be reviewed together. The last
version of the ChangeLog entries that I saw still needed more work to
follow the normal style for ChangeLog entries.
--
Joseph S. Myers
I guess this is better now.
Changelog (gcc/c-family):
2011-06-10 Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com
* c-pragma.h (pragma_handler_1arg, pragma_handler_2arg): New handler.
(gen_pragma_handler): New union.
(internal_pragma_handler): New type.
(c_register_pragma_with_data,
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:26:39 +0200
Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
I have written a test for this patch and run it (it works correctly). I
guess there is no reason why it should not be accepted now.
To recap, this patch add a void * data field to the pragma handler,
allowing to
You are right, the new version is in the diff.
The diff for the test hasn't changed and is in the previous mail.
In the previous version of the file, the registered_pragmas was not
better freed. I don't know if it is really important (it would need a
callback at the end of the front-end
Thanks for this patch. You need to adjust the formatting of the comments
to match the existing style (in particular, indentation of second and
subsequent lines of comments, and watch out for spelling errors (exemple,
abstact). For a struct, the explanations of individual fields should be
in
I have written a test for this patch and run it (it works correctly). I
guess there is no reason why it should not be accepted now.
To recap, this patch add a void * data field to the pragma handler,
allowing to pass extra data. If we want to use this field, we need to
use the function
Thank you for your answer!
I send you a new patch
I have corrected the errors you raised.
I have make my patch compatible with the old use of c_register_pragma
and c_register_pragma_with_expansion.
I don't know what is the best solution, maybe changing every call
c_register_pragma allows to
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:31:25 +0200
Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
Thank you for your answer!
I send you a new patch
I have corrected the errors you raised.
I have make my patch compatible with the old use of c_register_pragma
and c_register_pragma_with_expansion.
I find the
Hello,
I am sorry, my editor (vim) was not correctly configure (I used
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-03/msg00425.html to improve it). I guess
it is ok now.
If I still have issue, I will post on the mailing list if there is some
tips for vim otherway I will use Emacs (I am not very
Pierre == Pierre p.vit...@laposte.net writes:
Pierre I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter
Pierre which is a void *, allowing to give extra datas to the handler. I
Pierre think this data field might be of general use: we can have condition
Pierre or data at register
This patch is about the pragmas.
In c-family/c-pragma.h, we declare a pragma_handler which is a function
accepting cpp_reader as parameter.
I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter which
is a void *, allowing to give extra datas to the handler. I think this
data
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:54:38 +0200
Pierre p.vit...@laposte.net wrote:
This patch is about the pragmas.
In c-family/c-pragma.h, we declare a pragma_handler which is a function
accepting cpp_reader as parameter.
I have changed this handler in order to accept a second parameter which
is a
14 matches
Mail list logo
