This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: documentation of trees vs RTL [Final?]

To: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
Subject: Re: documentation of trees vs RTL [Final?]
From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:37:44 -0400
CC: Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105271929400.31847-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>


> Will you be applying this to the branch as well as the mainline?  I
> think we should be minimising differences in the manual between
> them.

I've argued against unnecessary changes on the branch before, and will
argue them here again.  At this point, AFAIK, the branch is frozen
except for fixing regressions, and this doc change certainly isn't a
regression.  If it were *just* a texi change, I'd be OK with it, but
it requires Makefile changes as well.

If Mark wants them in, though, I'd be happy to do the work.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: documentation of trees vs RTL [Final?]
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- Re: documentation of trees vs RTL [Final?]
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]