This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Add Epiphany port
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:33:31 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: RFA: Add Epiphany port
- References: <20111103140816.trwz063nj4ks4gos-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <CA+=Sn1m0wx7RfS=JaW9=J010SZnf4Ax4mqM--ON3YzUcOfwvTQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111103150455.6mrpu054z8csc00c-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <4EB2F254.6080802@redhat.com> <20111103182234.22r0qdtuluog4wkc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1111032328590.31547@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20111104015458.f7hzapyfqck4gw84-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
install.texi is a bit funny. sourcebuild.texi says to add configurations
to the list in config.texi even if you have nothing to say about them.
install.texi says you shouldn't do that. But after a while, it does do
that for a number of newer ports. So this seems to be a case of 'do what I
do, not what I say' ...
I tried to reduce this conflict and adjust this to be more clear
(between what "is" and what "has to be").
Applied to mainline.
Gerald
2012-08-26 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
* doc/install.texi (Specific): Clarify what needs to be added to
this section.
Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi (revision 190692)
+++ doc/install.texi (working copy)
@@ -2966,7 +2966,7 @@
Note that this list of install notes is @emph{not} a list of supported
hosts or targets. Not all supported hosts and targets are listed
here, only the ones that require host-specific or target-specific
-information are.
+information have to.
@ifhtml
@itemize