From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18040 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2005 00:23:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18028 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2005 00:23:42 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:23:42 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1Dr37w-0000s3-Uc; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:23:29 -0400 Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Geoffrey Keating Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Geoffrey Keating , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: move specs documentation to internals manual? Message-ID: <20050709002328.GA3301@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Geoffrey Keating , "Joseph S. Myers" , Geoffrey Keating , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20050708054604.67D4A15D66FE@geoffk5.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00312.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:29:49PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > I agree with both comments here: it's lame that we have duplicated > documentation (and explains why I didn't realise that I had to change > two places), and I don't think that we should be considering specs to > be an user-level interface to GCC. > > So, what do people think about (a) deleting the big comment in gcc.c > that tries to explain specs (leaving a pointer to the manual), and (b) > moving the specs documentation to the internals manual? I think it's a good idea - but someone should compare the two existing bits of documentation first, since IIRC I've seen people add to one but not the other. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC