https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=127598
--- Comment #2 from kingdomkind <kingdomkind at protonmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html Good morning, My apologies for not having followed the standards. I did not initially intend to make a commit (or atleast, not one that I am aware of, reading further it seems commits are done via email so I may have accidentally done, I mainly just supplied the patch, because why not), so I am unsure if the "Assisted-by:" tag applies (or where to put it), however, it was Assisted-by: GPT-5.6-Sol. As so for the explanation itself, it was not generated / written by an LLM, and is my own understanding. However, GPT-5.6-Sol was used to help explain the codebase and the bug, during this (the part in quotations is quoting myself if unclear, I just put it in quotes because I pasted it from my github where I initially wrote about it). As the latter would fall under the "Personal Use" section (or atleast, that was my reading of it), and the former I am not particularly sure what section it falls under as I did not intend to commit, I am more than happy to remove the patch file from the bug report, although I'm unsure how to edit the original message. I believe the explanation largely explains the rationale behind the patch, although, I did this a little over 2 weeks ago and have not looked at it since (I was waiting for account approval). If any further explanation for anything is needed, I am more than happy to look over it again, and explain each line specifically. I have not added any additional test cases / changelog (reading further from the ai-policy to the "usual pre-requisites" / contribute section) as I was unaware of the requirement at the time (and I am unsure if this counts as a submission of a patch). As per the same section, I have also performed a complete build of GCC (with disabled multilib), and additionally ran the C++ test suite. There were quite a few failed tests, although I believe they are unrelated to my changes, as the same tests also failed for me in a normal build (and searching online, it seems like many tests are expected to fail). If required, I am more than willing to write a test case & changelog to match, and provide .sum files for the existing test summaries. I apologise for not having read this initially (and for missing the tag, if it falls under this), and for a delayed response (running the tests took a while). Thank you for your time.
