Hi,
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'm probably the last person in the world that still generally prefers
> > -cp :-) I'm getting to the point where I can tolerate -u.
>
> No, I prefer -cp too - diff just too easily makes a mess out of diffs
> with -u, esp. if you have re-inden
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 02:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the bitmap/obstack example really one of a change that is
>>> desirable? I think if a file uses obstacks then an include of
>>> obstack.h is perfectly fine, giving us freedom to e.g. cha
On 10/05/2015 03:11 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
In any case, a direct include of obstack.h in coretypes.h was considered
earlier in the aggregation process and it didn't show up as something
that would be a win. It is included a couple of common places that we
have no control over.. in particula
On 10/05/2015 02:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is the bitmap/obstack example really one of a change that is
desirable? I think if a file uses obstacks then an include of
obstack.h is perfectly fine, giving us freedom to e.g. change bitmaps
not to use obstacks. Given that multiple headers include
On 10/05/2015 05:11 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I can switch to -u.. I've just never seen the request before.
I can regenerate the patches with -u if you want.
You are right, the patches are significantly easier to read with -u..
I've changed my svn diff script.here's all 3 patches:
And
On 10/05/2015 04:37 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/05/2015 10:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Its just an example of the sort of redundant includes the tool removes.
And your assertion turns out to be incorrect... bitmap.h is barely used
outside the backend, thus it is included in the backend.h agg
On 10/05/2015 10:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Its just an example of the sort of redundant includes the tool removes.
And your assertion turns out to be incorrect... bitmap.h is barely used
outside the backend, thus it is included in the backend.h aggregator
(This is the only header now which inc
On 10/05/2015 09:27 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/02/2015 04:22 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
The patches are generated by a pair of tools.
* gcc-order-includes goes through the headers and canonically
reorders some of our more common/troublesome headers and removes any
duplicates. This includes
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/02/2015 04:22 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
>> The patches are generated by a pair of tools.
>> * gcc-order-includes goes through the headers and canonically reorders
>> some of our more common/troublesome headers and removes any duplicat
On 10/02/2015 04:22 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
The patches are generated by a pair of tools.
* gcc-order-includes goes through the headers and canonically reorders some of
our more common/troublesome headers and removes any duplicates. This includes
headers which are included by other headers.
OK, newly regenerated patches to remove header files from the latest
version of the tools.
The patches are generated by a pair of tools.
* gcc-order-includes goes through the headers and canonically reorders
some of our more common/troublesome headers and removes any duplicates.
This includes
11 matches
Mail list logo
