[tuples] API documentation

[tuples] API documentation

[Diego Novillo]

I just finished going through the API document adding missing content
and updating stale information.  While there are various aspects of
GIMPLE that are not covered in the document, it is probably complete
enough for converting/adding gimple code.

At the moment I'm wondering what would be the best way to host this
documentation.  Do we leave it on some web-based form (wiki or google
docs)?  Do we move it to the source tree as .texi files?

I can see advantages to both approaches.  Leaving it on the web, makes
it easier to edit and evolve.  Moving to the source tree makes it
easier to version but harder to edit.

The document is now linked off of the tuples wiki
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/tuples).  The direct link is
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgfkmttj_107hcr98sg3

I would also appreciate feedback in terms of what is missing and what
would be useful to add.


Thanks.  Diego.

Re: [tuples] API documentation

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> writes:

> I just finished going through the API document adding missing content
> and updating stale information.  While there are various aspects of
> GIMPLE that are not covered in the document, it is probably complete
> enough for converting/adding gimple code.
>
> At the moment I'm wondering what would be the best way to host this
> documentation.  Do we leave it on some web-based form (wiki or google
> docs)?  Do we move it to the source tree as .texi files?
>
> I can see advantages to both approaches.  Leaving it on the web, makes
> it easier to edit and evolve.  Moving to the source tree makes it
> easier to version but harder to edit.

I think that when it is reasonably stable it should move into a .texi
file in the source code.  That is there the gcc internals manual
lives.

I would not be averse to moving the entire internals manual to the web
in some form.  But having it in two places does not seem like a good
idea to me.

Ian

Re: [tuples] API documentation

[Mark Mitchell]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> I think that when it is reasonably stable it should move into a .texi
> file in the source code.  That is there the gcc internals manual
> lives.
> 
> I would not be averse to moving the entire internals manual to the web
> in some form.  But having it in two places does not seem like a good
> idea to me.

I agree.  And, I think in the source code is the right answer, even over 
the long term.  For one thing, one often needs to know what the API 
*was* for some old version of GCC.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713