Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 22:13, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 18:43, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Anyway,  It would be more productive if we were to try to concentrate 
> > on a specific set of merge criteria for tree-ssa, than continue to 
> > discuss the benefits or disadvantages of it (since it seems clear the 
> > overwhelming number of people think it has great benefit already)
> 
> The single biggest issue is documentation.
>
We try to keep it fairly detailed and complete.  The API documentation
is published nightly, created directly from the source code comments. 
As with any evolving piece of code, I will not guarantee that the
documentation is complete, but it should not be hard to derive .texi
documentation out of it.

>  As you say, there are thirty
> optimization passes. That means that there should be thirty descriptions
> of  these passes
>
Fewer, actually.  Some passes are repeated more than once.

> So I would like to push for strict standards for documentation.
> All new code must meet the documentation standards *before* merging.
> Also, any old code that may be affected by the changes needs to be
> reviewed and stale comments need to be updated. In my opinion everything
> else is secondary.
> 
This goes again to my request for peer review.  All the API
documentation is available online.  You don't need to even check-out the
branch.  Follow the links from http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/
You will find high-level design documents and API documentation.  We
need bugzilla reports that point out specific bits that are missing.  I
have created PR13756 to begin tracking documentation issues.  Feel free
to add what you think is missing.


Thanks.  Diego.