Re: Web pages still refer to Chill

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Trevor Jenkins wrote:

> > Chill should surely get excluded from the 3.0 release tarballs / diffs if
> > not fixed by then though.
> 
> When is "then".

The time the 3.0 release script is finalised and prerelease tarballs start
being prepared.

I see no reason why changes (solely in the gcc/ch subdirectory) to make
Chill work shouldn't go on the branch as well as the mainline as long as
Chill is off by default - but it's up to Mark whether Chill can get turned
back on by default for 3.0 if it's working by then.

(Of course, if you don't already have them on file, you'll need to get a
copyright assignment (and possibly an employer disclaimer) on file at the
FSF, since this work will surely be big enough to require them.)

Other things that could be cleaned up in the Chill subdirectory, not
strictly needed to get it to work though but desirable if you want it to
be a good front end example:

* Convert it to use Make-lang.in only with no Makefile.in (done by Zack
for other subdirectories some time back).

* Observe that the Chill compiler has various declarations and definitions
of functions / variables from the C compiler that don't seem to be used -
remove these.  In other places, the comments are out of date (Chill seems
to have been linked to parts of the C compiler, five years ago) - update
them.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk