[committed] wwwdocs: gcc-11/changes.html: Editorial changes for RISC-V

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop@gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 10:16:58 GMT 2021


On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 07:58:50 +0200 (CEST)
Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:

> RISC-V has received a very nice section in the GCC 11 release notes
> thanks to Kito.
> 
> This are a couple of editorial changes, completing some sentence and
> breaking longer sentences among others, and a bit of grammar.
> 
> Pushed.
> 
> Gerald
> 
> ---
>  htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html
> index 97606174..491b6b71 100644
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html
> +++ b/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html
> @@ -953,33 +953,36 @@ You may also want to check out our

> +  <li>Legacy architecture extension test macros like
> +      <code>__riscv_atomic</code> are deprecated, but will still be
> +      supported for at least 2 release cycles.

I didn't look if we can annotate macros as deprecated to emit a warning
on use nor if they are marked as such.

>    </li>
>    <li>Support IFUNC for <code>riscv*-*-linux*</code>.</li>

> +  <li>Add new option <code>-misa-spec=*</code> to control ISA spec version.
> +      This controls the default version of each extensions.
> +      It defaults to 2.2.</li>

Is "each extensions" in plural really correct gramatically?
"default version of extensions" or
"default version of each extension"
And is "version of" correct WRT the code or does the code control the
version "for extensions"?

I.e.
"to control the default ISA spec version for extensions" if that's what
the option does?

thanks,


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list