ARC options documentation questions

[Claudiu Zissulescu]

Hi,

It looks good, please go ahead and commit your changes.

Thank you for your contribution,
Claudiu

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 02/24/2017 12:20 PM, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Indeed, we are not up to speed regarding updating and cleaning the
>> documentation.
>>
>> On 12/02/2017 05:18, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed a bunch of copy-editing issues in the "ARC Options" section of
>>> invoke.texi.  I'm willing to take a stab at fixing them, but I need some
>>> technical assistance since I'm not familiar with the details of this
>>> architecture myself.
>>>
>>> * In e.g. "Compile for ARC 600 cpu with norm instruction enabled." is
>>> "norm" literally the name of an instruction, GCC implementor jargon, or
>>> a term that is used and capitalized like that in the processor
>>> documentation?  Ditto for "mul32x16", "mul64", "LR", "SR", "mpy", "mac",
>>> "mulu64", "swap", "DIV/REM", "MPY", "MPYU", "MPYW", "MPYUW", "MPY_S",
>>> "MPYM", "MPYMU".  For other targets, literal names of instructions are
>>> usually marked up with @code{}, and it would be good to be consistent
>>
>>
>> All those names are additional instructions support which are not
>> available in the base ARC configurations. Indeed, we should be
>> consistent here.
>>
>>> * In "FPX: Generate Double Precision FPX instructions", is "Double
>>> Precision FPX" a proper name literally capitalized like that, or is this
>>> a mistake for "double-precision FPX instructions"?  Likewise for "Single
>>> Precision FPX"?
>>
>>
>> It is a mistake, we should use lower letters.
>>
>>>
>>> * In e.g. the discussion of fpuda_div, is "simple precision" a typo for
>>> "single precision"?  Likewise is "multiple and add" a typo for "multiply
>>> and add"?
>>>
>> Here are typos.
>
>
> Thanks for the additional clarifications.
>
> I've committed the attached patch, which has a few more cleanups beyond the
> version I posted a couple weeks ago.  It's not perfect, but I think it's at
> least an incremental improvement overall.
>
> -Sandra
>