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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Update libstdc++ FAQ and ensure stable anchors in HTML docs

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:26:41 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch] Update libstdc++ FAQ and ensure stable anchors in HTML docs
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20140609144716 dot GG30729 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1406222238550 dot 4149 at tuna dot site>

On 22/06/14 22:40 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

This fairly tedious patch refreshes the FAQ, including adding some
notes saying "This answer is old and probably no longer relevant" to
several answers referring to problems in the GCC 3.x era.


I'm wondering, should those old items be removed?  GCC 3.x is
really a looong while ago (and I did check some of those items).


Yes, that would probably be better. I considered doing that but didn't
want to spend the time to decide which ones to cull.

Suggestions are welcome.

A FAQ that containts many NAFAQs (not actually frequently askedquestions) may actually be less useful and paint a more negative
picture.


Good point.

References:
- [patch] Update libstdc++ FAQ and ensure stable anchors in HTML docs
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [patch] Update libstdc++ FAQ and ensure stable anchors in HTML docs
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

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