From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20926 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2005 19:43:37 -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 20899 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2005 19:43:33 -0000 Received: from smtp-100-sunday.nerim.net (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:43:33 +0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20F240E22; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:43:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j6AJh5pI022628; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:43:06 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j6AJh5Yd022627; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:43:05 +0200 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Michael Cieslinski Subject: Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item) References: <1120855271.7999.13.camel@linux.site> <1120870920.7757.22.camel@linux.site> <1121017996.7757.52.camel@linux.site> <1121019141.7757.65.camel@linux.site> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <1121019141.7757.65.camel@linux.site> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 Daniel Berlin writes: | Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :) | | However, my real point still stands: | | 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our | current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not | because they are out of date, but because they don't give them | information on what they really want to know. Then, let see what information they want and how they can be put there. [...] | 3. We should seriously consider writing and maintaining different guides | and references than the ones we have. | I'm happy to go talk to the people who feel this way, and find out what | it is exactly that they want, though i'm pretty sure it's something like | | A. Tree language reference guide (ie, semantics, etc) | B. RTL language reference guide (ie, semantics) written in a simple | format like: | | RTL Instructions and how they are linked | RTL modes and what they represent. | | Then | For each RTL code: | | CODE - what it is used for and represents | examples of how operations are represented using CODE | valid flags for CODE | valid macros for CODE | | instead of the current: | | "here's a bunch of things about rtl. | here's a bunch of things about rtl flags. | Here's a bunch of things about rtl macros. | Here's a small bunch of things about rtl operations. | here's a bunch of things about rtl modes | Here's some more stuff about insns" | | C. How to write a basic RTL pass | D. How to write a basic tree-ssa pass | E. Reference guides for analysis providers in tree-ssa (IE what we | provide and how to make use of provided alias info, data dependence | info, immediate uses, etc) | F. Reference guide for analysis providers in RTL. I see no reason why those should not be part of our main documentation reposotroty along with or replacing our traditional documentation. It appears to me that you're relating unrelated effects and causes. -- Gaby