This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFA: hook doc patch (62/112): TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK, TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
To: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"Joern Rennecke" <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:27:58 +0000
Subject: Re: RFA: hook doc patch (62/112): TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK, TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
References: <20100115223556.yjlbr2tke80ocwsg-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <alpine.LSU.1.99.1001170032130.16540@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

>>> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> 17.01.10 00:43 >>>
>On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>        * tm.texi (TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK): Fix return type.
>>        (TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME): Likewise.
>
>More like "Add return type" in the first case. ;-)
>                                                                                
>Okay with this change.
>
>The two parameters for TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME really should be 
>const, shouldn't they?  (I know that's not what we currently have, so the 
>current documentation is okay, but...).  Jan?

No, if at all, then only for the first parameter (as the second may get
returned as-is, and the return value certainly shouldn't be const). But
how come you ask me?

Jan

References:
- RFA: hook doc patch (62/112): TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK, TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
  - From: Joern Rennecke
- Re: RFA: hook doc patch (62/112): TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK, TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]