From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41573 invoked by alias); 1 May 2015 15:23:35 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 41491 invoked by uid 89); 1 May 2015 15:23:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 May 2015 15:23:33 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1YoCmn-0006ub-UJ from Sandra_Loosemore@mentor.com ; Fri, 01 May 2015 08:23:29 -0700 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 1 May 2015 08:23:28 -0700 Message-ID: <55439A34.6050707@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 15:23:00 -0000 From: Sandra Loosemore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kyrill Tkachov CC: GCC Patches , "gerald@pfeifer.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH][doc] Update definition location of attribute_spec in documentation References: <554392EE.9020408@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <554392EE.9020408@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 On 05/01/2015 08:51 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > Like the subject says, struct attribute_spec is now defined in > tree-core.h rather than tree.h. > The patch updates the reference that I spotted. > > Ok for trunk? > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > 2015-05-01 Kyrylo Tkachov > > * target.def (attribute_table): Mention that struct attribute_spec > is defined in tree-core.h rather than tree.h > * doc/tm.texi: Regenerate. This looks fine to me. In fact, I think this sort of change qualifies as obvious and can just be committed without asking for review. -Sandra