This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] cfg.texi needs reviewing by a native speaker (Was: Re: "Documentation by paper")
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, dnovillo at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:33:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] cfg.texi needs reviewing by a native speaker (Was: Re: "Documentation by paper")
- Organization: SUSE Labs
- References: <10402042108.AA03894@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 22:08, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Having this in the manual is certainly useful, but I'd be even more excited
> at seeing this documented in the CFG source code.
Let this document be your guide and go ahead, because I'm not
going to do that. You asked for documentation and you got it,
but you are not even prepared to review it because it is not
exactly the way you like it? I'm sorry, but that makes the
many of the points you have made in this thread a whole lot
less credible to me.
I prefer to have this kind of documentation in the documentation.
So do many others apparently, because the internals manual also
has chapters on RTL, trees, machine descriptions, and so on.
Or are you suggesting we should move all that into the C source
files as well? Of course, the bits of cfg.texi where files are
refereced are already documented in the files, too.
Does someone else have time to review this please? It seems the
loudest people in this thread are not actually going to help
improving the situation they complain about.
Gr.
Steven