Re: [tree-ssa] cfg.texi needs reviewing by a native speaker (Was:Re: "Documentation by paper")

[Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>]

Steven Bosscher wrote:

> It's based on Jan Hubicka's old cfg.texi, which he&others wrote after
> doing a lot of work on the CFG representation in GCC.  That document
> is almost three years old now, but it was never reviewed (not even by
> the people in this thread who say they care about documentation).  I
> don't claim it's perfect -- on the contrary.  But does it look like
> an acceptable start?

Looks like a good start to me. I am always a bit nervous about having
documentation separated from the source, because in practice it is 
harder to keep up to date. But perhaps all this discussion will
encourage more people to work harder to make sure that doc is
kept up to date :-)