This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: target hooks / plugins
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
- Cc: 'GCC Mailing List' <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Grigori Fursin <grigori dot fursin at inria dot fr>, ctuning-discussions at googlegroups dot com, 'Yuanjie Huang' <huangyuanjie at ict dot ac dot cn>, 'Liang Peng' <pengliang at ict dot ac dot cn>, 'Zbigniew Chamski' <zbigniew dot chamski at gmail dot com>, 'Yuri Kashnikoff' <yuri dot kashnikoff at gmail dot com>, 'Diego Novillo' <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:18:03 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: target hooks / plugins
- References: <4AE6E471.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4AE70C5E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4AE7164D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <-2186575642631489790@unknownmsgid> <email@example.com> <00d801ca5e34$e5384160$afa8c420$@firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Duplicating all these changes separately by hand seems nigh impossible.
> I think the best approach is then to take the auto-generated tm.texi as
> the new tm.texi, and packages it up as a patch together with the
> struct member / hook name changes that I made for consistency.
> There is only one issue with using the current auto-generated tm.texi:
> Unless special formatting was in force (e.g. @smallexample), I've removed
> intra-paragraph newlines. This should work in principle just as will
> as with these newlines for producing output, but it looks somewhat daft
> in tm.texi when you consider it as a source file.
I am not particularly concerned about newlines, if the file is identical
apart from whitespace. But your text file lists things such as "was
undocumented" and "Fixed return value description". Each such change
needs its own review, by someone familiar with the relevant part of the
compiler, and needs its own explanation of the problem posted. Remember,
a patch should not contain multiple changes that can logically be
considered separately, and in this case I expect many different people to
be appropriate reviewers for changes relating to different hooks, so it's
important not to mix changes relating to hooks in different areas of the
Joseph S. Myers