From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10797 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2016 17:49:27 -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 10123 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2016 17:49:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Sandra, discussions, mouth 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:49:25 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1aj9Nq-000184-1z from Sandra_Loosemore@mentor.com ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:49:22 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:49:21 -0700 Subject: Re: [DOC Patch] Add sample for @cc constraint To: Bernd Schmidt , David Wohlferd , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <56E4E5D6.4030500@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56F40103.8080600@redhat.com> CC: Richard Henderson From: Sandra Loosemore Message-ID: <56F428A1.6090109@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56F40103.8080600@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg01394.txt.bz2 On 03/24/2016 09:00 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > In principle we probably should have an example, but once again I have > some problems with the style of the added documentation. I prefer > concise writing without unnecessary repetition. Any other reviewers can > of course override me, but the following is my opinion on these changes. > > More problematic than a lack of documentation is that I haven't been > able to find an executable testcase. If you could adapt your example for > use in gcc.target/i386, that would be even more important. FAOD, I've been keeping my mouth shut on this patch because I am not at all familiar with low-level x86 features, the example makes little sense to me, and I can't make any useful suggestions of my own about how to improve this section of the documentation. :-( Generally, though, I agree with Bernd's preference for conciseness and not wandering off into side discussions or repetition of material already covered elsewhere. -Sandra