diff mbox series

[committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic

Message ID 20230807211335.701619-1-jwakely@redhat.com
State Unresolved
Headers
Series [committed] i386: Fix grammar typo in diagnostic |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check warning Git am fail log

Commit Message

Jonathan Wakely Aug. 7, 2023, 9:12 p.m. UTC 
  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(-)

Comments

Marek Polacek Aug. 7, 2023, 9:22 p.m. UTC | #1 
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 %<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
Gerald Pfeifer Aug. 22, 2023, 2:08 p.m. UTC | #2 
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
Hongtao Liu Aug. 22, 2023, 11:28 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
<libstdc++@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
>
Hongtao Liu Aug. 23, 2023, 5:15 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> <libstdc++@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.liu@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");
     }


> >
> > > -- >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
Jonathan Wakely Aug. 23, 2023, 7:02 a.m. UTC | #5 
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> > <libstdc++@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.liu@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
>
Hongtao Liu Aug. 23, 2023, 8:08 a.m. UTC | #6 
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
>> > <libstdc++@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.liu@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?
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 %<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
Hongtao Liu Aug. 24, 2023, 3:38 a.m. UTC | #7 
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> >> > <libstdc++@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.liu@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?
> 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 %<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
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
Jonathan Wakely Aug. 24, 2023, 6:27 a.m. UTC | #8 
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 04:38 Hongtao Liu, <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, <
> libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++
> > >> > <libstdc++@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.liu@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?
> > 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
> %<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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > BR,
> > Hongtao
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> Hongtao
>
diff mbox series

Patch

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.  */