[PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[Kyrill Tkachov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

Hi all,

The company ARM is not Advanced RISC Machines anymore and anyway the ARM 
architecture is distinct from the company.
This patch adjusts the documentation accordingly.

Ok?

Thanks,
Kyrill

2014-12-10  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>

     * doc/invoke.texi (ARM options): Remove mention of Advanced RISC
     Machines.

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: arm-doc-risc.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name=arm-doc-risc.patch, Size: 438 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index f8fe15f..baf3c9f 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -12667,8 +12667,7 @@ Replaced by @samp{-mmultcost}.
 @subsection ARM Options
 @cindex ARM options
 
-These @samp{-m} options are defined for Advanced RISC Machines (ARM)
-architectures:
+These @samp{-m} options are defined for the ARM port:
 
 @table @gcctabopt
 @item -mabi=@var{name}

Re: [PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[Kyrill Tkachov]

Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00947.html

Thanks,
Kyrill
On 10/12/14 16:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The company ARM is not Advanced RISC Machines anymore and anyway the ARM
> architecture is distinct from the company.
> This patch adjusts the documentation accordingly.
>
> Ok?
>
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
> 2014-12-10  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
>
>       * doc/invoke.texi (ARM options): Remove mention of Advanced RISC
>       Machines.

Re: [PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[James Greenhalgh]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:18:18PM +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Ping.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00947.html

This patch almost certainly falls under the obvious rule:

  "will the person who objects to my work the most be able to
   find a fault with my fix?"

ARM hasn't stood for "Advanced RISC Machines" since 1998, so I can't see
even your most fervent nemesis objecting to this one!

Cheers,
James

> 
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
> On 10/12/14 16:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The company ARM is not Advanced RISC Machines anymore and anyway the ARM
> > architecture is distinct from the company.
> > This patch adjusts the documentation accordingly.
> >
> > Ok?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyrill
> >
> > 2014-12-10  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
> >
> >       * doc/invoke.texi (ARM options): Remove mention of Advanced RISC
> >       Machines.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 18/12/14 17:37, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:18:18PM +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Ping.
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00947.html
> This patch almost certainly falls under the obvious rule:
>
>    "will the person who objects to my work the most be able to
>     find a fault with my fix?"
>
> ARM hasn't stood for "Advanced RISC Machines" since 1998, so I can't see
> even your most fervent nemesis objecting to this one!

Yeah, one could almost make an argument that it's a typo fix.
Committed as r218897.

Thanks,
Kyrill

>
> Cheers,
> James
>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyrill
>> On 10/12/14 16:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The company ARM is not Advanced RISC Machines anymore and anyway the ARM
>>> architecture is distinct from the company.
>>> This patch adjusts the documentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> Ok?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyrill
>>>
>>> 2014-12-10  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
>>>
>>>        * doc/invoke.texi (ARM options): Remove mention of Advanced RISC
>>>        Machines.
>>
>>

Re: [PATCH][ARM][doc] Remove mention of Advanced RISC Machines

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Friday 2014-12-19 10:24, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00947.html
>> This patch almost certainly falls under the obvious rule:
> Yeah, one could almost make an argument that it's a typo fix.
> Committed as r218897.

I am not a big fan of stretching the concept of a typo fix. 

Rather, let's comfortably call obvious what _is_ obvious
and have people like you fix things like this, or improve
things, without having to wait for approval.  

Just go for it. :-)

Gerald