This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request for Assistance: GCC 3.3.1 Code-Gen Problems
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>,Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pme at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:55:44 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Request for Assistance: GCC 3.3.1 Code-Gen Problems
- References: <200307151719.h6FHJnZg016582@minax.codesourcery.com><200307162315.02442.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20030716211719.GA11916@disaster.jaj.com><200307170018.57025.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr><Pine.BSF.4.56.0307231105560.36019@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><023401c35686$6d7fbc00$050b24d5@fr>
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Phil Edwards wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to just quote the first two lines and then
>> add "...and proceed as usual" or "...and proceed as described in @ref"?
> Sure, that should work. I'll make that change, if you'll tell me what
> you prefer for the @ref argument. There are a couple of possibilities,
> all seem equally good to me.
Sorry for the delay. I quickly had a look back then, but failed to find
something which I really liked so I postponed it and...
Well, how about "@uref{build.html,,the build instructions}" ? [1]
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Lines 3-5 here are exactly what we recommend in general, so either this
>> occurence is redundant (-> long term maintainance issue) or the general
>> description is not sufficient (and should be improved instead).
> Not exactly: the build instructions use 'make' instead of 'gmake'.
Well, make can be any of a lot of different 'make's (including GNU make)
and 'gmake' not necessarily exists (especially if 'make' = GNU make) so
I think it's better to just use 'make' everywhere.
Sorry for the delay!
Gerald
[1] I now that's not perfect, and one of these days we really should
convert to "modern" makeinfo with its better features for HTML support,
but currently we simply lack a volunteer to do so.