Re: Proposed doc update for Explicit Reg Vars 1/3

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 10/20/2015 10:14 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> > Abot the patches themselves...  Hard to review again, sigh...
>
> I know, and I'm sorry.
>
> I just can't see any way to completely re-org the text without the patch
> becoming a nightmare.  I was hoping the html links would make that
> easier, but I guess not.  On the plus side, Explicit reg vars is the
> last section I plan to do this to.  I appreciate you taking the time.
I think the html links helped.

> I did keep a small amount of intro on the the menu page.  If you feel
> there's more that we should keep, I'm certainly willing to re-visit
> this.  Perhaps after we resolve the local/global stuff so we know what
> we really want to say.
>
> Jeff has already checked in the patch for this menu page
I think what's left is fine.  About all we really want to do is vector 
folks to one of the two pages.  One could argue that we should just drop 
the intro page and pull up the local/global subpages a level.  But if we 
do that, then we're going to have a harder time vectoring the reader to 
the right place.



 (but not the
> Local or Global subpages), so you can see what I've left here on the gcc
> website
Right.  I wanted to see final consensus, particularly on the Local page 
and what we're ready to commit to there.  I think the global page was 
close, but may have needed one more minor iteration.

> Lastly, if some external website is linking to "Explicit Reg Vars", what
> do we want to have happen now that we have renamed that to "Explicit
> Register Variables"?  Should the link just fail?  I've added the @anchor
> so it doesn't, but I'm not sure that's the standard for gcc.  Who should
> I be asking?
Not sure if there's really a policy for external links into the 
documentation.  Leaving an @anchor seems like the nice/wise thing to do.

Jeff