[PATCH][DOCS] gcc-13: document removal of STABS

[PATCH][DOCS] gcc-13: document removal of STABS

[Martin Liška]

Ready for master?

Thanks,
Martin

---
  htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html | 3 +++
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
index c4189c1b..b5e49258 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
      <li>The support for the <code>cr16-elf</code>, <code>tilegx*-linux</code>, <code>tilepro*-linux</code>,
        <code>hppa[12]*-*-hpux10*</code>, <code>hppa[12]*-*-hpux11*</code>
        and <code>m32c-rtems</code> configurations has been removed.</li>
+    <li>The support for emitting the STABS debugging format has been removed
+      (includes <code>-gstabs</code> and <code>-gxcoff</code> options) which means
+      the support for <strong>dbx</strong> debugger is removed.</li>
  </li>
  </ul>
  
-- 
2.37.2

Re: [PATCH][DOCS] gcc-13: document removal of STABS

[Gerald Pfeifer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

Hi Martin,

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> +    <li>The support for emitting the STABS debugging format has been removed
> +      (includes <code>-gstabs</code> and <code>-gxcoff</code> options) which means
> +      the support for <strong>dbx</strong> debugger is removed.</li>

how about slightly rephrasing this and breaking up the sentence for easier 
consumption?

   <li>Support for emitting the STABS debugging format (including the
     <code>-gstabs</code> and <code>-gxcoff</code> options) has been removed.
     (This means the <strong>dbx</strong> debugger is no longer 
     supported, either.)</li>

Just a suggestion, feel free to take what you like (only the removals and 
addition of "the" should stay.)

And if you have an idea how to phrase my second sentence a little nicer, 
absolutely go for it.

Thanks,
Gerald

Re: [PATCH][DOCS] gcc-13: document removal of STABS

[Martin Liška]

On 9/2/22 10:29, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
>> +    <li>The support for emitting the STABS debugging format has been removed
>> +      (includes <code>-gstabs</code> and <code>-gxcoff</code> options) which means
>> +      the support for <strong>dbx</strong> debugger is removed.</li>
> 
> how about slightly rephrasing this and breaking up the sentence for easier 
> consumption?
> 
>    <li>Support for emitting the STABS debugging format (including the
>      <code>-gstabs</code> and <code>-gxcoff</code> options) has been removed.
>      (This means the <strong>dbx</strong> debugger is no longer 
>      supported, either.)</li>
> 
> Just a suggestion, feel free to take what you like (only the removals and 
> addition of "the" should stay.)

I like your suggestion!

Cheers,
Martin

> 
> And if you have an idea how to phrase my second sentence a little nicer, 
> absolutely go for it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gerald