This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Generate Complex functions from a common template.
- From: "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:11:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Generate Complex functions from a common template.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover dot 1467323999 dot git dot murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <ce06c4c6-22f7-51ee-fdfc-a29c7d7e3a46 at redhat dot com>
On 07/01/2016 04:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I got curious here and used "git diff -B -M30%" to (much) more
> clearly see the real differences in the patches that mostly do
> conversion to generated code, and spotted this funny change:
>
> similarity index 37%
> rename from math/s_clog10f.c
> rename to math/b_clog10.c
> index 485625e..eeb2d65 100644
> --- c/math/s_clog10f.c
> +++ w/math/b_clog10.c
> @@ -6,9 +6,8 @@
> The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> - version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> -
> - The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + version M_LIT (2.1) of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> +The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> Lesser General Public License for more details.
>
> :-)
Ah, some of the sausage making process spills out. I've fixed those,
and improved (or fixed) the first line comments on most of the files
too. Likewise, I fixed an M_LIT (0.0) translation inside another
comment after Joseph's suggestion for patch 3.
>
> (there are likely others, I stopped looking here.)
>
> (I'd suggest considering posting the next revision of the series
> with -M30% or some such threshold that catches all renames, to
> ease review, but that's up to Joseph).
I toyed around with various levels and options, none seem to
a good job of handling the renames. I'm not sure there is a
one size fits all solution to getting a good, concise patch.
A thorough review might involve diffing the b_*.c file with
the equivalent real type file pre-patch.
Thanks,
Paul