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


  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: link
Be 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).