public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "thome at lix dot polytechnique dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14178] doc bug: -fabi-version=2 is now default (not 1) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:32:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20040219143242.616.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040217162928.14178.thome@lix.polytechnique.fr> ------- Additional Comments From thome at lix dot polytechnique dot fr 2004-02-19 14:32 ------- I would do more extensive cleanup, if there were a consensus on what to do with these very scattered comments. Most (if not all) comments about flags are duplicated (c-common.c , c-common.h, toplev.c, flags.h, only to mention those). It would really be nicer if one single rule could determine where to find a terse comment about some particular variable (.c or .h ? I vote for .c since [ec]tags goes easier right to it). I've checked the sources, there seems to be no such rule. Therefore, producing a patch which brings in sync the dozens of disagreeing comments would be not very fascinating housekeeping job, and bound to be somewhat useless (no reason to expect the situation would be any better 6 months from now). I would prefer to decide that terse comments have no place in, say, the .h files, and synchronize them in the .c files ; but doing such a thing requires a consensus, I'm not going to submit anything on my own otherwise. The previous patch updates the comment about abi_version for 3.4.0, which is enough for the current PR. For the rest of the code cleanup, it certainly can wait. E. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14178
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-19 14:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-02-17 16:29 [Bug c++/14178] New: " thome at lix dot polytechnique dot fr 2004-02-17 16:46 ` [Bug c++/14178] " cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-17 16:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-17 16:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-18 12:55 ` thome at lix dot polytechnique dot fr 2004-02-18 21:53 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-02-18 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-19 14:32 ` thome at lix dot polytechnique dot fr [this message] 2004-03-27 3:46 ` [Bug other/14178] " ian at wasabisystems dot com 2004-06-26 20:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 21:35 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org [not found] <bug-14178-717@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2007-09-04 14:27 ` [Bug c++/14178] " paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 14:28 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20040219143242.616.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).