This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Transactional Memory documentation in extend.texi
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, andi at firstfloor dot org, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <andrew dot pinski at caviumnetworks dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:22:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: Transactional Memory documentation in extend.texi
- References: <1321539297.22674.1685.camel@triegel.csb>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> We are aware that the TM language constructs should be documented in
> extend.texi. However, the most recent public version of the C++ TM
> specification document is outdated, and a new version is supposed to be
> released in a few weeks.
>
> Therefore, we'd like to wait until the release of the new specification
> document so that we can just cite this new document instead of having to
> cite the old one and list all the changes.
Why can't you just describe the extensions yourself?
Shipping something undocumented is just pointless. And even if there's
a specification somewhere users typically need a end user oriented
manual too, which a specification is not.
On the other hand documenting the ABI like you currently do
doesn't seem very interesting to me, I don't know who ever would
need that. If someone wants to implement their own STM they
can as well read the spec themselves or read some header files.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.