This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: documentation of trees vs RTL

> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
>> As suggested by Mark, the documentation for trees will go in the
>> general manual before the RTL section. I have a working version of
>> this, but I still need to:
>> - Remove the conflicts that were generated by subsequent changes into
>>   gcc.texi.
>> - Proofread the doc, because I had to change the sectionning stuff
>>   and I wanted to verify that everything went OK.
> Is this patch also splitting gcc.texi up into separate files?  If so, it
> might be convenient to first get in the patch that splits out those parts
> that are identical on 3.0 branch and mainline, and does the other changes,
> then separately deal with the parts that have diverged between 3.0 and
> mainline where splitting into separate files will be more complex and need
> more care.

No not yet. Actually, I did not even expect those patches to be 
applied to the gcc 3.0 branch. I thought that such changes would not 
qualify. And if I remember correctly what Mark said in a previous 
mail, the path he sketched was the opposite. Merge the c-tree doc with
gcc.texi (and if this should be done for the 3.0 branch, I need to 
know), and then split the manual (and I expected this to happen only 
on the mainline).

Let me know what you think should be done on the branch and I'll what 
I can come up with.

The patch I have (for the mainline) just includes the c-tree doc into 
the gcc doc and updates the Makefiles accordingly + the $(TEXI2DVI) 
thingy you suggested in a previous mail (that seems to work at least
with my configuration).


Theodore Papadopoulo
Email: Tel: (33) 04 92 38 76 01

PGP signature

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