From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29925 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2012 18:59:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 29604 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2012 18:59:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com (HELO sjogate2.atmel.com) (204.2.163.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:58:55 +0000 Received: from csomb01.corp.atmel.com ([10.95.30.150]) by sjogate2.atmel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0UIscGr009205; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:54:45 -0800 (PST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Patch,wwwdocs,AVR]: AVR release notes Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8D64F155F1C88743BFDC71288E8E2DA806D3EC05@csomb01.corp.atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <4F26A14D.4050207@gjlay.de> References: <4F19B2BB.2020401@gjlay.de> <4F26A14D.4050207@gjlay.de> From: "Weddington, Eric" To: "Georg-Johann Lay" , Cc: "Gerald Pfeifer" , "Denis Chertykov" 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg01666.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Georg-Johann Lay=20 > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:55 AM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric > Subject: Re: [Patch,wwwdocs,AVR]: AVR release notes >=20 > Attached an updated patch as there were many changes and so that Eric and > Denis > can easier catch up. Hi Johann, Comments: In the first hunk of the patch, you say that libgcc has been improved and enhanced. Can you elaborate just a little in the docs as to how it has been improved and enhanced? The reason is that we are telling users that they have recompile all their code with a new version of gcc because of these improvements and enhancements, but I think we are too vague in giving them a reason. Users will want to know why they have to do a rebuild. It doesn't have to go into great detail, but just a little less vague. s/Support has beed added/Support has been added/ If the list of built-in functions added is really long, I'm ok leaving out the whole list. But, can we give some sort of short description as to the types of built-in functions added? Other than those things, the updated patch looks good to me. Let me know if I can help with wording / language. Eric Weddington