From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31601 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2010 09:05:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 31592 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Aug 2010 09:05:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:05:37 +0000 Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so1650594ewy.20 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.12.196 with SMTP id y4mr587886eby.61.1280826334427; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yakj.usersys.redhat.com (s209p8.home.99maxprogres.cz [85.93.118.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm4457827eeh.23.2010.08.03.02.05.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C57DBDB.4040703@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:05:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Kenner CC: stevenb.gcc@gmail.com, Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, ams@gnu.org, bkoz@redhat.com, dewar@adacore.com, dnovillo@google.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, iant@google.com, mark@codesourcery.com, richard.guenther@gmail.com Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <20100726175013.20b12428@shotwell> <4C4E35B8.6010301@codesourcery.com> <4C4E37FC.1060208@adacore.com> <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.com> <20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.com> <4C4F20E8.5050206@codesourcery.com> <4C509E54.6090401@codesourcery.com> <110 07291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C5195FA.2060208@codesourcery.com> <4C52B176.7040807@adacore.com> <4C52E1C0.6090400@codesourcery.com> <4C53696B.7030801@adacore.com> <4C536B50.4010402@codesourcery.com> <11008022335.AA09107@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: <11008022335.AA09107@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On 08/03/2010 01:35 AM, Richard Kenner wrote: >> That is true, but very often the documentation is needed in two >> places: in the code and in the manual. Especially for things like >> machine constraints, flags and options. > > Yes, but the audiences are different between users who read the manual and > developers who read the code. For the best quality, the two descriptions > may well be quite different, in emphasis, tone and other areas. If the > emphasis is on finding text that's acceptable for BOTH purposes, you create > documentation that's not ideal for EITHER. The amount of comments copied tout-court from gccint to the target files (especially with respect to target macro definitions) seems to contradict this. Paolo