From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23494 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2010 14:53:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 23480 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2010 14:53:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:53:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 4842 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2010 14:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Jun 2010 14:53:44 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPGTP-0005B3-1M; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:53:43 +0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:29:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Mark Mitchell cc: Joern Rennecke , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Guenther , bonzini@gnu.org, dj@redhat.com, neroden@gcc.gnu.org, aoliva@redhat.com Subject: Re: Update^5: Fix PR other/44034 In-Reply-To: <4C1A35FA.9060808@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <20100526035246.h4v4fkajq8kcs0wk-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100526074705.ybxjn3la80cwkgg4-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100526114501.naowcook48wo0kwg-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100528121743.sj8wuutpdwo8ggkc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100607181903.vsr8r9994w8sk4o0-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100608230324.rh3qk1dp9usgswsg-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <4C1A35FA.9060808@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2010-06/txt/msg01786.txt.bz2 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > Is there any reason I shouldn't review this patch, from a doc maintainer > > perspective > > Probably not -- but would you provide a URL for the patch so that I can > take a look and just verify that it doesn't seem to conflict with > anything RMS has said? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00846.html I believe the existing hooks converted to the new system are all ones where either Joern wrote the documentation, or the documentation in tm.texi is identical with the comments in target.h, although I have not verified this (that would be part of the review). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com