Re: treelang patch parts n of 6

[Tim Josling <tej at melbpc dot org dot au>]

New change
----------------

At some point the gcc/treelang/.cvsignore file got deleted so I am
adding that back in now.

General
-----------

I will address the issues raised.

I realise that not everyone believes that treelang is a good idea. It
may well be valid that if you need a sample language to implement a
front end to gcc, you probably should not implement a front end to gcc.
Even for those who do not *need* treelang though, I think it will help
and I even have some evidence for that statement.

Regressions
----------------

>    Please correct these and re-submit the patch.
>
> The code was checked in already.... Hrm...

IMHO it is most unlikely that I have caused any regressions, given that
I did not change any of the core gcc code and treelang does not even
build by default.

Nor would I ever cvs commit any core gcc code myself for many reasons.

Viewing the patch
------------------------

For those who asked to view the patches in full in one place without
wrapping etc, see http://www.geocities.com/timjosling/treelang_diff.txt
.

texi
-----

There were many comments about the texi and I will correct the outright
errors that were pointed out.

This was discussed previously. I was originally told no documentation
would be needed at all and a provisional document was certainly OK. I
added it based on an existing model, however I will work on improving
the texi over time (discussed at length in earlier posts). Some of the
material belongs in the main gcc manual as was pointed out, but it is
not yet production ready, so it is separate for now. Apart from
complying with the rules written and unwritten, I will be rewriting
Joachim Nadler's guide to writing a front end from scratch and
incorporating that, probably into the main gcc manual (copyright
problems, can't get a release). At that point the treelang manual can
become just another front end manual.

The faults pointed out today were present in the previous versions of
treelang that have been posted/advised to the list over a period of time
and none of these issues were pointed out then.

Tim Josling

"David S. Miller" wrote:

>    From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
>    Date: 05 May 2002 01:09:13 -0700
>
>    Please correct these and re-submit the patch.
>
> The code was checked in already.... Hrm...