RFA: Updated gcc-5 html documentation for new RX option

RFA: Updated gcc-5 html documentation for new RX option

[Nicholas Clifton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

Hi Gerald,

   The attached patch updates the gcc html documentation to mention the 
new RX command line option that I checked in today.  Is this patch OK to 
apply ?

Cheers
   Nick


[-- Attachment #2: changes.html.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1186 bytes --]

Index: htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.107
diff -u -3 -p -r1.107 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html	13 Apr 2015 21:14:26 -0000	1.107
+++ htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html	15 Apr 2015 10:04:56 -0000
@@ -800,6 +800,18 @@ here</a>.</p>
     option became meaningless and can be discarded.</li>
   </ul>
 
+<h3 id="rx">RX</h3>
+  <ul>
+    <li>A new command line option <code>-mno-allow-string-insns</code> can be
+    used to disable the generation of the <code>SCMPU</code>, <code>SMOVU</code>,
+    <code>SMOVB</code>, <code>SMOVF</code>, <code>SUNTIL</code>, <code>SWHILE</code>
+    and <code>RMPA</code> instructions.  An erratum released by Renesas shows
+    that it is unsafe to use these instructions on addresses with the I/O space
+    of the processor.  The new option can be used when the programmer is
+    concerned that the I/O space might be accessed.  The default is still to
+    enable these instructions.</li>
+  </ul>
+
 <h3 id="sh">SH</h3>
   <ul>
     <li>The compiler will now pass the appropriate <code>--isa=</code> option

Re: RFA: Updated gcc-5 html documentation for new RX option

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Nicholas Clifton wrote:
> The attached patch updates the gcc html documentation to mention the 
> new RX command line option that I checked in today.  Is this patch OK 
> to apply ?

This looks good to me, thank you!

The only question I have is: where it says "on addresses with 
the I/O space of the processor", might that be "within"?

Gerald