This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Missing documentation
- To: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Subject: Re: Missing documentation
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:18:46 -0700
- cc: "neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk" <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, "zackw at stanford dot edu" <zackw at stanford dot edu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
--On Monday, June 11, 2001 06:34:11 AM -0400 Phil Edwards
<pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:21:26PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> >>>>> "Neil" == Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Neil> This documents -fpreprocessed (and removes an unnecessary
>> Neil> comment about trigraphs being brain-damaged. I can't argue
>> Neil> with that, but I don't think it belongs in the manual).
>>
>> The manual is definitely not a soapbox.
>
> Then we can throw out that annoying "Linux and the GNU Project" chapter?
>
I guess I should say "most of the manual is not a
soapbox". The FSF definitely considers the manual a reasonable place
to make its views and objectives known. I think it's OK to talk about
the GNU Project in the manual -- but editorializing on compiler switches
is pretty extreme.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com