This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: An issue for the SC: horrible documentation quality of GCC
- From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:25:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: An issue for the SC: horrible documentation quality of GCC
- References: <10305091217.AA14340@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Richard> I want to repeat what I just said in a separate message: the
Richard> amount of totally undocumented code in GCC is approaching
Richard> very troublesome levels. There are who areas of the compler
Richard> in which nobody but their author can work due to a complete
Richard> lack of any high-level documentation....
Speaking as somone who has been trying to dig into gcc with the help
of gccint.*, I certainly agree. However...
Richard> (2) Remove any parts of the compiler for which documentation
Richard> is not supplied by the 3.4 release.
That doesn't seem very practical because you'd end up with much of the
compiler gone -- like the parser, and the code generator... :-(
FWIW, I think the situation with gcc is substantially better than,
say, gdb, or worse yet, binutils.