Re: Simple RTL question (was: New cfg code)

[Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>   In message <m3emhmhxlz.fsf@fred.muc.de>you write:
>   > Would it be possible to generate those parts of rtl.texi mechanically
>   > from rtl.def (via a perl script or similar) ? 
> It would be possible.
> 
> However, in my experience, this does not actually work all that well.  Just
> look at BFD which uses this kind of scheme.

Agree 100% on BFD.

My (entirely theoretical ;-) approach to this sort of thing is to
maintain docs and code together, and instead of mechanically generating
the entire docs, _verify_ the docs instead.  So if the docs are missing
a field or function, the verifier script warns.  Maybe it even inserts
the missing function with "not yet documented".  Sometimes a good doc
string can be found with the thing to be documented, but sometimes it's
good to write something separately, that better fits a manual.

-- Jamie