This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ARC options documentation questions
- From: Claudiu Zissulescu <claziss at gmail dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Joern Wolfgang Rennecke <gnu at amylaar dot uk>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 13:14:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: ARC options documentation questions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <589FE22E.6070608@codesourcery.com> <44933f39-fa87-ab65-3ca3-9b1d1421869f@gmail.com> <58B64F81.9080908@codesourcery.com>
Hi,
It looks good, please go ahead and commit your changes.
Thank you for your contribution,
Claudiu
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 02/24/2017 12:20 PM, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Indeed, we are not up to speed regarding updating and cleaning the
>> documentation.
>>
>> On 12/02/2017 05:18, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed a bunch of copy-editing issues in the "ARC Options" section of
>>> invoke.texi. I'm willing to take a stab at fixing them, but I need some
>>> technical assistance since I'm not familiar with the details of this
>>> architecture myself.
>>>
>>> * In e.g. "Compile for ARC 600 cpu with norm instruction enabled." is
>>> "norm" literally the name of an instruction, GCC implementor jargon, or
>>> a term that is used and capitalized like that in the processor
>>> documentation? Ditto for "mul32x16", "mul64", "LR", "SR", "mpy", "mac",
>>> "mulu64", "swap", "DIV/REM", "MPY", "MPYU", "MPYW", "MPYUW", "MPY_S",
>>> "MPYM", "MPYMU". For other targets, literal names of instructions are
>>> usually marked up with @code{}, and it would be good to be consistent
>>
>>
>> All those names are additional instructions support which are not
>> available in the base ARC configurations. Indeed, we should be
>> consistent here.
>>
>>> * In "FPX: Generate Double Precision FPX instructions", is "Double
>>> Precision FPX" a proper name literally capitalized like that, or is this
>>> a mistake for "double-precision FPX instructions"? Likewise for "Single
>>> Precision FPX"?
>>
>>
>> It is a mistake, we should use lower letters.
>>
>>>
>>> * In e.g. the discussion of fpuda_div, is "simple precision" a typo for
>>> "single precision"? Likewise is "multiple and add" a typo for "multiply
>>> and add"?
>>>
>> Here are typos.
>
>
> Thanks for the additional clarifications.
>
> I've committed the attached patch, which has a few more cleanups beyond the
> version I posted a couple weeks ago. It's not perfect, but I think it's at
> least an incremental improvement overall.
>
> -Sandra
>