From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5977 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2010 16:18:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 5948 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2010 16:18:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:18:09 +0000 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NV5v3-00082w-SE for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:18:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 22813 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2010 16:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Jan 2010 16:18:04 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NV5v1-0002s0-Ft; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:18:03 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:18:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Joern Rennecke cc: 'GCC Mailing List' , Grigori Fursin , ctuning-discussions@googlegroups.com, 'Yuanjie Huang' , 'Liang Peng' , 'Zbigniew Chamski' , 'Yuri Kashnikoff' , 'Diego Novillo' Subject: Re: target hooks / plugins In-Reply-To: <20100113110917.vqaoqpyyc0ck8gso-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> Message-ID: References: <4AE6E471.4020200@starynkevitch.net> <4AE70C5E.4050005@starynkevitch.net> <84fc9c000910270839v2d9efe0dw829c8647f361c96f@mail.gmail.com> <4AE7164D.9010200@starynkevitch.net> <84fc9c000910270855w736df367qe511d8db280aaeb4@mail.gmail.com> <2dc303d60910271056h17038110ib63c53cfa374f5c7@mail.gmail.com> <20091102074959.p8410ulv28sg0w44-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20091105082557.75c2estyoog8ss0c-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <-2186575642631489790@unknownmsgid> <55692dc10911050634y54a5fea7jd2ba773086cda60b@mail.gmail.com> <00d801ca5e34$e5384160$afa8c420$@fursin@inria.fr> <20091223101256.z6a8ug32o8k84o4o-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20091223193244.hqaet9zf488gw844-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100113032220.pzerwhbtog0w4gsk-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <20100113110917.vqaoqpyyc0ck8gso-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-detected-operating-system: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Duplicating all these changes separately by hand seems nigh impossible. > I think the best approach is then to take the auto-generated tm.texi as > the new tm.texi, and packages it up as a patch together with the > struct member / hook name changes that I made for consistency. > > There is only one issue with using the current auto-generated tm.texi: > Unless special formatting was in force (e.g. @smallexample), I've removed > intra-paragraph newlines. This should work in principle just as will > as with these newlines for producing output, but it looks somewhat daft > in tm.texi when you consider it as a source file. I am not particularly concerned about newlines, if the file is identical apart from whitespace. But your text file lists things such as "was undocumented" and "Fixed return value description". Each such change needs its own review, by someone familiar with the relevant part of the compiler, and needs its own explanation of the problem posted. Remember, a patch should not contain multiple changes that can logically be considered separately, and in this case I expect many different people to be appropriate reviewers for changes relating to different hooks, so it's important not to mix changes relating to hooks in different areas of the compiler. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com