Re: [PING][PATCH] libgcc: Fix typos in comments for ARM FP emulation routines

[Sandra Loosemore]

On 04/20/2016 06:38 AM, Martin Galvan wrote:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Sandra Loosemore
 wrote:

Or, do you need someone to check this in for you because you don't have
write access to the repository?


Hi! Yeah, I don't have write access. If you could commit this for me
it would be great. Thanks!


OK, done.  It's r235291.

-Sandra

Re: [PING][PATCH] libgcc: Fix typos in comments for ARM FP emulation routines

[Martin Galvan]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Sandra Loosemore
 wrote:
> Or, do you need someone to check this in for you because you don't have
> write access to the repository?

Hi! Yeah, I don't have write access. If you could commit this for me
it would be great. Thanks!

Re: [PING][PATCH] libgcc: Fix typos in comments for ARM FP emulation routines

[Sandra Loosemore]

On 04/19/2016 03:53 PM, Martin Galvan wrote:

A lifetime ago I contributed a patch that added CFI directives to ieee754-df.S,
among other files. For unrelated reasons I looked at that file again and saw
that some of the comments have extra '@' characters interwined; this is probably
the result of splitting lines because they were too long. This patch simply
removes those extra chars, as well as fixing a couple other cosmetic issues.


IMO, fixing typos and formatting in comments (especially in your own 
code!) qualifies as an "obvious fix" that you can check in without prior 
approval.  In any case, I looked over the patch and it seems fine to me.


Or, do you need someone to check this in for you because you don't have 
write access to the repository?


-Sandra

[PING][PATCH] libgcc: Fix typos in comments for ARM FP emulation routines

[Martin Galvan]

A lifetime ago I contributed a patch that added CFI directives to ieee754-df.S,
among other files. For unrelated reasons I looked at that file again and saw
that some of the comments have extra '@' characters interwined; this is probably
the result of splitting lines because they were too long. This patch simply
removes those extra chars, as well as fixing a couple other cosmetic issues.

libgcc/ChangeLog:
2016-04-19  Martin Galvan  

* config/arm/ieee754-df.S: Fix typos in comments.

Index: libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S
===
--- libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S  (revision 234960)
+++ libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S  (working copy)
@@ -160,8 +160,8 @@
teq r4, r5
beq LSYM(Lad_d)
 
-@ CFI note: we're lucky that the branches to Lad_* that appear after this 
function
-@ have a CFI state that's exactly the same as the one we're in at this
+@ CFI note: we're lucky that the branches to Lad_* that appear after this
+@ function have a CFI state that's exactly the same as the one we're in at this
 @ point. Otherwise the CFI would change to a different state after the branch,
 @ which would be disastrous for backtracing.
 LSYM(Lad_x):
@@ -1158,8 +1158,8 @@
 1: str ip, [sp, #-4]!
.cfi_adjust_cfa_offset 4@ CFA is now sp + previousOffset + 4.
@ We're not adding CFI for ip as it's pushed into the stack
-   @ only because @ it may be popped off later as a return value
-   @ (i.e. we're not preserving @ it anyways).
+   @ only because it may be popped off later as a return value
+   @ (i.e. we're not preserving it anyways).
 
@ Trap any INF/NAN first.
mov ip, xh, lsl #1
@@ -1169,14 +1169,14 @@
COND(mvn,s,ne)  ip, ip, asr #21
beq 3f
.cfi_remember_state
-   @ Save the current CFI state. This is done because the branch
-   @ is conditional, @ and if we don't take it we'll issue a
-   @ .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset and return.  @ If we do take it,
-   @ however, the .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset from the non-branch @ code
-   @ will affect the branch code as well. To avoid this we'll
-   @ restore @ the current state before executing the branch code.
+   @ Save the current CFI state.  This is done because the branch
+   @ is conditional, and if we don't take it we'll issue a
+   @ .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset and return.  If we do take it,
+   @ however, the .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset from the non-branch code
+   @ will affect the branch code as well.  To avoid this we'll
+   @ restore the current state before executing the branch code.
 
-   @ Test for equality.  @ Note that 0.0 is equal to -0.0.
+   @ Test for equality.  Note that 0.0 is equal to -0.0.
 2: add sp, sp, #4
.cfi_adjust_cfa_offset -4   @ CFA is now sp + previousOffset.