This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [doc patch] More alphabetizing
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I won't object to the idea of this, but I think the separation of
machine-independent and target attributes is useful (target attributes
being exactly those defined in TARGET_ATTRIBUTE_TABLE), and as we
discussed in the conference call reviewing the printed manual last July, I
think it would make sense to merge the lists of function, variable and
type attributes (saying for each what sort of things it applies to), so
having two lists, one for target-independent attributes and one for
target-dependent ones. (Plus a cross-reference to the existing list of
C++ attributes, which is already alphabetical.)
Not disagreeing. I didn't notice that target & independent were separated,
it was such a tangle :) Sorting them into one list highlights
the slightly different names (longcall/long_call) used in different ports.
Also it got my wondering why the opposite of noinline is always_inline (and
not inline), or conversly why the opposite of always_inline is not
never_inline. ho hum.
I've probably not got the energy to do more that merely sort the separate
func/var/type attribute lists though.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk