From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2951 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2010 12:34:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 2939 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2010 12:34:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f177.google.com) (74.125.82.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:34:37 +0000 Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so58463wyb.22 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.181.140 with SMTP id l12mr2328053wem.69.1276518875047; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t70sm1215358weq.26.2010.06.14.05.34.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C16269C.9060908@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:47:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= CC: Richard Guenther , GCC Patches , Gerald Pfeifer Subject: [wwwdocs] Re: [4.5.1,PR42776] Backport LTO-COFF implementation. References: <4C12F96F.20108@gmail.com> <4C16219E.5060405@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg01424.txt.bz2 On 14/06/2010 13:21, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 14 June 2010 14:33, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 12/06/2010 09:17, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >>> Oh, and add an entry to gcc-4.5/changes.html to the section for 4.5.1. >> Wait, I just checked. We appear not to have been using separate sections >> per release version in the changes.html pages since way back in GCC-4.1 days >> (and not even consistently there). > > There is: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/ Umm, terminology? I think I mean "release version" as opposed to "release series". If you look at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/, you see a series of links:
GCC 4.0.4
January 31, 2007 (changes)
GCC 4.0.3
March 10, 2006 (changes)
GCC 4.0.2
September 28, 2005 (changes)
GCC 4.0.1
July 7, 2005 (changes)
GCC 4.0.0
April 20, 2005 (changes) Note there are separate anchored sections for each version of the release series. Now compare a more recent one, like http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/:
GCC 4.2.4
May 19, 2008 (changes)
GCC 4.2.3
February 1, 2008 (changes)
GCC 4.2.2
October 7, 2007 (changes)
GCC 4.2.1
July 18, 2007 (changes)
GCC 4.2.0
May 13, 2007 (changes) Notice the lack of anchors; and it's not just the links, there are no anchors or separate section headers for the individual versions on the actual http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html page. > As a user I would prefer to have a new section for GCC 4.5.1. on the > changes.html page. Otherwise, it is impossible to know what was > available in GCC 4.5.0 and what is new now. Hmmm, I'd like to know why we stopped doing it that way before starting again. Gerald (Cc'd), do you happen to know if this was a deliberate policy decision, or is it just an oversight in the past few releases? cheers, DaveK