other/1493: Residual EGCS references in user documentation

Joseph Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk
Thu Dec 21 12:46:00 GMT 2000


>Number:         1493
>Category:       other
>Synopsis:       Residual EGCS references in user documentation
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       high
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Dec 21 12:46:01 PST 2000
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Joseph S. Myers
>Release:        2.97 20001218 (experimental)
>Organization:
none
>Environment:
System: Linux decomino 2.2.18 #1 Thu Dec 14 19:30:45 UTC 2000 i686 unknown
Architecture: i686

	
host: i686-pc-linux-gnu
build: i686-pc-linux-gnu
target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
configured with: ../gcc-cvs/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/snapshot --disable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib
>Description:

The following non-historical references to EGCS remain in GCC in what
may be considered user-visible documentation (after
<URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-12/msg01094.html >), and
really ought to be fixed.


libio/ NEWS:*** Major changes in libio for egcs:
libstdc++/ NEWS:*** Noteworthy changes in libstdc++ for EGCS

If the old libstdc++ remains in GCC for GCC 3.0, then these files need
something added at the top to clearly state their relation to GCC and
the obsolescence of the old libstdc++.


libstdc++-v3/docs/html/17_intro/BADNAMES:For egcs:

The list needs either

* to be marked as a historical list relating to an obsolete compiler
  version, namely such-and-such an EGCS version; or

* (preferred) to be updated to relate to GCC 3.0, and to be marked as
  relating to GCC 3.0 rather than EGCS.


libffi/README:Libffi has been tested with the egcs 1.0.2 gcc compiler. Chances are
libffi/README:EGCS 1.0.1 (and probably other versions of EGCS/GCC) also has a
libffi/README:only single-precision, but EGCS stores single-precision arguments as

These references need to be updated to relate to non-ancient GCC
versions.  Especially, the latter two describe a problem with EGCS
1.0.1 as something current; if the problem is fixed, it should be
clearly listed as a historical note if retained; if not, it should say
something like "all GCC versions from at least EGCS 1.0.1 through to
GCC 3.0".

>How-To-Repeat:

Find references to this mysterious "EGCS" thing as if it were
something current in the documentation.

>Fix:

See above.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list