Re: IA64 TF->XFmode conversion: final

["Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

Jim Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 17:43, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Sorry about that.  I have a mess of other patches that were blocked on
>> that one, and I was satisfied with my own testing on ia64-linux.
>
> No problem.  I've done my own testing, and I'm satisfied that the patch
> is OK.

Glad to hear.

>> The documentation is in machmode.def.  I no longer make substantial
>> additions to manuals under the GFDL.
>
> I understand that you have a personal objection to the GFDL.  However,
> our policies clearly require that significant changes be documented in
> the manual.  I think it is unwise for a global write maintainer to
> arbitrarily decide that certain rules don't apply to him.

I don't consider it an arbitrary decision.  And I intend not to
enforce that rule against anyone, which is not quite the same as "this
rule doesn't apply to me".  And, just to be clear, I am only not
updating the manual when I would have to write large quantities of
text to do so.  I've got a patch queued up that includes a target hook
conversion, and I update the manual for that.  But in this situation,
where I would have to write an entire new manual section (machine
modes are only sketchily documented at present) I decline to
contribute my time and effort to something non-free.

Joseph Myers suggested in private mail that people either update the
manual or file bugs against it saying in effect "this is not
documented because of the manual's license", assigned to RMS.  I'd be
fine with that.  (To avoid cluttering the bug tracker, I think this
should be just one bug report, saying "the manual's license is
unacceptable to some GCC contributors", with a growing list of places
where things have gone undocumented because of the license.)

zw