Re: Document pedantic debug mode typo (was Re: GCC 3.4.4)

[Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:40:13PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> >Mark already approved the patch below (including for 3.4) and I committed
> >it to 3.4 just now.  Any v3 people have objections to putting it in on
> >mainline too?
> >
> >The typo is fixed on the 4.0 branch and mainline but Mark said (in a
> >private mail) that it's not worth fixing on the 3.4 branch, so the
> >the affected versions are likely to stay as 3.4.x (for all x) and 4.0.0
> >
> I saw the doc patch and believe is really a good idea (as the original
> fix ;) for 3.4.x. On the other hand, the problem is already fixed for
> 4.0.1 and mainline and I'm afraid could be a little misldeading having
> it in the very same release (4.0.1) that fixes it! Even more so for 4.1.0.
> 
> Can you propose a rewording that would make crystal clear that 4.0.1 and
> later don't need the additional -D? I would suggest something like (but
> please improve the english itself): "N.B. In GCC 3.4.x and 4.0.0, due to
> a bug, <code>-D_GLIBXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC</code> was also needed. The
> problem has been fixed in GCC 4.0.1 and newer."

Yep - good idea.  Using the past tense _and_ explicitly saying it's
fixed makes it nice and clear.

I'll wait a day or so and if noone has any other comments I'll go with
that text.

Thanks,

jon

-- 
"There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users'."
	- Edward Tufte