[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug bootstrap/14462] [3.5 Regression] a-calend.adb:396:33: warning: val

From: charlet at act-europe dot fr
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/14462] [3.5 Regression] a-calend.adb:396:33: warning: value not in range of type "Ada.Calendar.Day_Duration"
Date: 12 Mar 2004 06:37:34 -0000

------- Additional Comments From charlet at act-europe dot fr  2004-03-12 06:37 
Subject: Re:  [3.5 Regression] a-calend.adb:396:33: warning: value not in range 
of type "Ada.Calendar.Day_Duration"

> @address@hidden  Please don't criticize others.  It just makes people
> upset and is not constructive.

Now you can see how Ada people sometimes feel when this happens the other
way around.

OK, let's be more constructive on all sides.

> 1) The ChangeLog entry for trans.c is not written using GCC standards.
> Here it is:
> 2004-03-05  Richard Kenner  <address@hidden>
>       * trans.c: Reflect GCC changes to fix bootstrap problem.
>       Add warning for suspicious aliasing unchecked conversion.
> ChangeLog entries are supposed to indicate the functions changed
> and what was changed.  They are *not* supposed to contain a justification
> for the change.  What the heck does "Reflect GCC changes" mean.

I agree that this entry is not a wonderful one, although you're not
complaining to the right person.

As for containing justification, that's a fundamental disagreement between
the other GCC modules and the Ada front-end: we, Ada people, consider it
fundamental and much more useful to explain *why* a change is made in
a changelog, since it makes it so much easier to track a change afterwards,
rather than having to dig into the gcc list archives, and this is, when
there *is* a message on a gcc list justifying the change.

We've found that the lack of a justification in changelogs in GCC in general
makes it very hard to track failures and understand changes and is very time
consuming, so we're certainly not willing to loose this very important extra
piece of information.

That's not the right place to discuss this pretty fundamental issue anyway,
but I don't think we're going to change our mind on this issue.

> You would never guess from this log entry that the change contains two
> separate and independent changes.

Then I guess you are not using punctuation like other people do: there
are two sentences in the changelog, clearly separated by a 'dot' and even
a line break. But I see that you are in fighting mode, so I'd rather not
discuss this further.

> 3) The change to trans.c did not in fact fix the bootstrap problem.
> It had been broken further by this change committed after Paulo's change:
> 2004-03-04  Jan Hubicka  <address@hidden>

Thanks, that's a constructive hint. Is anyone working on this ?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]