This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care
- From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>
- To: gerald at pfeifer dot com
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:39:32 -0700
- Subject: Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine.LSU.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:59:28 PDT (-0700), email@example.com wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.
>> Is there something I should add? I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the
>> "host/target specific issues start here" section and there's some notes
>> about binutils-2.24. We'll require binutils-2.28 (the first version that
>> we're upstream in), I can add a note in that section about RISC-V as
>> well if you think it's appropriate.
> I am generally a fan of keeping documentation short (lest it is
> skipped or skimmed), but as long as necessary.
> In your case I don't think artificially blowing up the section on RISC-V
> to match others would be helpful. However, given that binutils 2.28 is
> so brand new, that I'd definitely mention.
> (My proposals/patches yesterday are about removing references to ten
> year old versions of binutils from install.texi, quite the other end
> of the spectrum.)
Makes sense. I think I found a few other problems in ours as well. How does
[PATCH] RISC-V documentation cleanups