This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposed doc update for Explicit Reg Vars 3/3
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:10:51 -0600
- Subject: Re: Proposed doc update for Explicit Reg Vars 3/3
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <561C3DAE dot 8050505 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <5625CF7E dot 5010003 at redhat dot com> <20151020151312 dot GB25514 at gate dot crashing dot org> <56266519 dot 8070104 at redhat dot com> <56266630 dot 2050800 at redhat dot com> <562667FF dot 5000003 at redhat dot com> <562668B5 dot 6040404 at redhat dot com> <56266A5D dot 80809 at redhat dot com> <56266E4D dot 1060303 at redhat dot com> <56267219 dot 4080008 at redhat dot com> <562715FA dot 8080502 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56273083 dot 2030704 at redhat dot com> <56289268 dot 4060203 at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
On 10/22/2015 01:38 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Thanks. I'll fix the whitespace problem and commit it to the trunk
An updated Local Register Variables patch is attached with the changes
discussed. It also includes removing the extra space after '.' that
Segher has been giving me grief about and Jeff's request re Globals:
> Signaling that this stuff may change and that we'd like better
solutions for certain issues is, IMHO, worth keeping. Please keep it.
I remain unconvinced that this text is useful for compiler-users, and it
seems odd to keep gcc's todo list in the user documentation. But I trust
your judgement, so I have restored the verbatim text to the global page
(at the bottom).
Nobody has commented on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64951 (register variable
with template function). While I'm updating the page, is this a
limitation of Local Register Variables that should be doc'ed?
Your call -- folks will be switching from a development to a bugfixing
mindset shortly as the gcc6 development window closes. Hopefully
someone will take a look at this particular issue at that time.
Ahh. I assumed that with your Jedi mind powers, you would just 'know'
whether this was fixable. I'll just wait to see what happens.
If it weren't for the C++ template aspect I probably would "just know".
Hmm, if there's some you think ought to be closed, feel free to comment
on them and pass along their IDs. I can review and close as appropriate.
So, this pretty much finishes all the code and doc changes I wanted to
do to gcc. While doing this work, I have found a number of bugzilla
entries where it looks like the needed work has already been done
(sometimes by the doc changes I've been sending), but the bug hasn't yet
been resolved. While I can add comments, bugzilla won't let me resolve
them or I would update them myself.
When people are in bug-fixing mode seems like the right time to pursue
this. How will I know when it's time? Is there a web page?
Or I can ask around and find out what the current procedure is for
getting you more privileges in bugzilla. Your call on that.
As for when the shift occurs to bugfixing, it's usually in early/mid
November each year. That also happens the be the deadline for
development patches to have been posted for review, hence most folks are
busy trying to wrap up their development work.