Re: [wwwdocs] darwin additions to gcc-4.6/changes.html

[Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, IainS wrote:
> Here is an initial stab at a changes entry for Darwin.
> comments?

I was going to make some tweaks and commit the patch with you, but
somehow I'm struggling with a number of overly long lines which break
the patch. :-(

Do you mind reformatting to avoid lines longer than some 76 columns?

> Index: htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html
> ===================================================================
> +      'toll-free bridged' as per the Mac OSX system tools.

Is there a specific reason to use single quotes? Otherwise I suggest
to use double quotes.

Is Mac OSX really the proper spelling or is there a blink before X
missing?

> +      <li>The <code>-mdynamic-no-pic</code> option has been enabled</li>

Full stop?

> +      Code supporting <code>-mdynamic-no-pic</code> optimization has been
> added

Something's wrong in terms of markup.  You have a closing </li> and then
a new sentence without an opening <li>?

> +      <li>The default value for <code>-mtune=</code> has been changed</li>
> +      Since Darwin systems are primarily Xeon, Core-2 or similar the default
> tuning
> +      has been changed to <code>-mtune=core2</code>.

Same here.

In case you want to force a line break, use <br />, but put the </li> 
at the end of the itme.

> +      Several significant bugs have been fixed, such that GCC now produces
> code
> +      compatible with the Darwin64 PowerPC ABI.

</li>

> +      <li>libffi and boehm-gc</li>
> +      The Darwin ports of the <code>libffi</code> and <code>boehm-gc</code>
> +      libraries have been upgraded to include a Darwin64 implementation.
> +      This means that powerpc*-*-darwin9 platforms may now, for example,
> build
> +      Java applications with <code>-m64</code> enabled.

Same as above re </li>.

When refering to the libraries, I don't think we need <code>...</code>.


The patch looks fine with this changes, and Mike already nodded.  When
committing just watch out for messages from my validator script; it is
possible I missed one or two details.

Thanks,
Gerald