Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Adding AVR-specific release notes to wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html
> 
> Index: changes.html
> ===================================================================
> +    <li>The AVR port's libgcc has been improved and its multilib structure
> +      has been enhanced.  As a result, all objects contributing to an
> +      application must either be compiled with GCC versions up to 4.6.x or
> +      with GCC versions &ge;&nbsp;4.7.</li>
> 
> How about "...compiled with older versions of GCC, up to GCC 4.6.x,
> or GCC 4.7.0 and later" ?

The "compiled with" might be confusing, for example if someone uses a library
generated with 4.6 and compiles his application with 4.7. He does not compile
the library, but yet he might run into problems because the code assumes a
specific layout of libgcc. Therefore I used the "all objects" wording. It's bit
more technical, but I hoped the reduce misunderstandings.

> And I'd omit the &nbsp; just &ge;4.7.0 should work?
> 
> +    <li>Support has beed added for instrinsic named address spaces
> 
> "Support for...has been added" (also typo: beed -> been)
> 
> +    <code>__pgm</code>, <code>__pgm1</code>,&nbsp;&hellip;, <code>__pgm5</code>
> 
> How about omitting &nbsp; here?
> 
> +    and <code>__pgmx</code>.  These address spaces locate read-only data in
> +    flash memory and allow reading from flash memory by means of vanilla
> +    C&nbsp;instructions, i.e. without the need of (inline) assembler code.</li>
> 
> What's a C instruction?  C builtins?

Is "C code" better? Or C-code? Without the extension, inline assembler must be
used to get correct code, using C like a = b or pstruct->component will yield
wrong code without the extensions if b or *pstruct is located in flash.

> +    <li>Support for AVR-specific built-in functions has beed added.</li>
> 
> Which ones?

Must they all be named explicitly? Or is it ok to link to onlinedocs?
I'd prefer a link to the explanation in onlinedocs but I am unsure how stable
the links are as docs evolve over time/versions.

> +    <li>New command-line options <code>-maccumulate-args</code>,
> +      <code>-mbranch-cost=<i>cost</i></code> and <code>-mstrict-X</code>
> +      were added to allow better fine-tuning of code optimization.</li>
> 
> Should X be put under <i>...</i> here, to?

No, the X refers to X-register and must be literally, nothing else than
uppercase X is permitted.

> +    <li>Many optimizations to:
> +      <ul>
> +	<li>64-bit integer arithmetic</li>
> +	<li>Widening multiplication</li>
> +	<li>Integer divide-by-constant</li>
> 
> "division by a constant"
> 
> + <li>Generic built-in functions + like <code>__builtin_ffs*</code>, 
> <code>__builtin_clz*</code>,&nbsp;etc.</li>
> 
> I don't think we need &nbsp; here.  Breaking the lines here is something
> a web browser should avoid, but it is not verboten, technically.

Tried to get typesetting all right and avoid Hurenkinder, and I really don't
know if browsers add penalties like TeX does. I frequently see browsers offend
typesetting rules if there is no nanny.
What does "need no &nbsp;" mean? Nothing at ",etc." all or blank ", etc."?

> 
> +	<li>Merging of data in <code>.progmem</code></li>
> 
> What is ".progmen"?  Perhaps paraphrase this briefly?

Not easy without getting into too much technical details...
Maybe Eric can help. He is definitely better in English than I am.

> The update is fine assuming you look into my suggestions.

Attached an updated patch as there were many changes and so that Eric and Denis
can easier catch up.

Johann