From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3DB63858C54; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:55:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A3DB63858C54 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FD41F746; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from murzim.suse.de (murzim.suse.de [10.160.4.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78836A3B87; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:55:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Richard Biener To: Jonathan Wakely cc: libstdc++ , gcc Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Update incorrect statement about mainline in docs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20220414102911.681186-1-jwakely@redhat.com> <31761r9p-787-282q-30q4-711s21475s66@fhfr.qr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:55:44 -0000 On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 11:36, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > This fixes some misleading text in the libstdc++ manual that says the > > > docs for the gcc-11 branch refer to mainline. > > > > > > Richi, is this OK for the gcc-11 branch now? It's been wrong for 11.1 > > > and 11.2, but it would still be nice to fix. > > > > Yes, it's OK. I notice the same problem exists on the GCC 10 branch > > but GCC 9 at least mentions GCC 9 once ;) > > Yes, I fixed it for gcc-9.3.0, but forgot to do it for gcc-10 and gcc-11. > > I pushed r10-10534 to fix gcc-10 (since that's open for doc changes) > and have now pushed r11-9881 > as well. > > Maybe this year I'll remember to do it for gcc-12 after we branch from trunk! Add an entry to branching.html! Richard.