remove useless files #161
remove useless files #161
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @oeqqwq, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
Summary of Changes
This pull request aims to remove what are described as useless files, specifically a set of patches related to grpc and ippcp. The patches being removed appear to address changes related to boringssl and openssl dependencies, as well as some compiler flag configurations for ippcp.
Highlights
- Dependency Update Reversal: The patch
bazel/patches/grpc_1.66.patchremoves changes that switched fromboringssltoopensslin thethird_party/BUILDfile. - Dependency Update Reversal: The patch
bazel/patches/grpc_module_file.patchremoves changes that switched fromboringssltoopensslin theMODULE.bazelfile. - Compiler Flag Reconfigurations: The patch
bazel/patches/ippcp.patchremoves a series of changes to compiler flags within theippcpbuild configuration files, including modifications to security flags and warning suppressions.
Changelog
Click here to see the changelog
- bazel/patches/grpc_1.66.patch
- Removes a patch that previously switched the
libsslandlibcryptoaliases from@boringssl//:ssland@boringssl//:cryptoto@openssl//:ssland@openssl//:cryptorespectively inthird_party/BUILD.
- Removes a patch that previously switched the
- bazel/patches/grpc_module_file.patch
- Removes a patch that previously updated the
MODULE.bazelfile to depend onopensslversion3.3.2.bcr.1instead ofboringsslversion0.0.0-20230215-5c22014.
- Removes a patch that previously updated the
- bazel/patches/ippcp.patch
- Removes modifications to
sources/cmake/linux/GNU8.2.0.cmake, including adding-fuse-ld=bfdtoLINK_FLAG_DYNAMIC_LINUX, unsetting_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and adding warning suppressions. - Removes modifications to
sources/cmake/macosx/AppleClang11.0.0.cmake, including removing security linker flags, unsetting_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and adding warning suppressions. - Removes a change to
sources/cmake/macosx/common.cmakethat setOS_DEFAULT_COMPILERtoAppleClang11.0.0. - Removes modifications to
sources/ippcp/crypto_mb/src/cmake/linux/GNU.cmake, including adding-fuse-ld=bfdtoLINK_FLAGS_DYNAMIC, unsetting_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and adding warning suppressions. - Removes modifications to
sources/ippcp/crypto_mb/src/cmake/macosx/AppleClang.cmake, including removing security linker flags and unsetting_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and adding warning suppressions. - Removes modifications to
sources/cmake/linux/Clang9.0.0.cmake, including unsetting_FORTIFY_SOURCEand adding warning suppressions toCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE.
- Removes modifications to
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
A patch, once applied with care,
Now departs, leaving code bare.
Useless, it seems,
Like forgotten dreams,
Removed to lighten the load there.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request aims to remove useless files, specifically patches related to boringssl and ippcp. The changes involve switching from boringssl to openssl and removing some compiler flag modifications. The review focuses on the correctness and potential impact of these removals.
Summary of Findings
- boringssl to openssl switch: The patch removes boringssl and switches to openssl. This change should be carefully considered for compatibility and security implications. Ensure that all dependencies and configurations are updated accordingly.
- Removal of compiler flag modifications: The patch removes several compiler flag modifications related to ippcp. It's important to understand the purpose of these flags and ensure that their removal doesn't negatively impact performance or security.
- Potential impact on build process: The removal of these patches might affect the build process. It's crucial to verify that the build still works as expected after these changes.
Merge Readiness
The pull request involves significant changes, including switching from boringssl to openssl and removing compiler flag modifications. It is recommended to thoroughly test the changes and address any potential compatibility or security issues before merging. Due to the potential impact of these changes, I recommend that the pull request not be merged until these are addressed. I am unable to approve the pull request in any circumstance, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging.
No description provided.