Re: manual patch

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

2010/1/20 François Dumont:
> Here is a new proposition with all you remarks considered. I don't really
> understand why files that are generated from others are part of the SVN
> repository but I moved my modif on the xml files.

Excellent, thank you.  All the changes below look fine. Do you have a
copyright assignment for GCC?  I think this patch can be checked in
for you without one, but if you plan to make more changes then you
will need the assignment in place.

> I removed the modification on the answer to the iterator overhead. I guessed
> that the 'Very little' overhead when using this technique is limited to the
> compilation time, that is to say that it slow down the sources compilation.

I realised after I sent my mail that you meant it only affected
compilation time, sorry, I was being slow.

> If I guessed wrong then it could be great to complete the answer or to
> simply change it to say 'None'.

The runtime overhead will depend on optimisation level and may not be
"none".  Rather than getting into details, let's just leave it saying
"Very little" until someone is motivated enough to add a more accurate
answer.



> Index: ChangeLog
> ===================================================================
> --- ChangeLog ? (révision 156082)
> +++ ChangeLog ? (copie de travail)

Because the ChangeLog is updated so often, patches in unified/context
diff format quickly go stale and fail to apply, so it's better to
paste/attach the ChangeLog entry as plain text, rather than including
it in the patch with the other changes.  That makes it easier for
reviewers to apply your patch for testing.

You should also confirm that you tested the patch e.g by running 'make
doc-html' and inspecting the results.

I'm in the middle of a big piece of work but will come back to your
patch, I think it should be checked in.

Thanks again,
Jonathan