Do we really need a CPP manual?

[Jim Wilson]

On 12/16/2016 10:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> That's likely the manual RMS kept asking folks (semi-privately) to
> review.  My response was consistently that such review should happen
> publicly, which RMS opposed for reasons I don't recall.

I reviewed it, on the grounds that a happy rms is good for the gcc 
project, and because I haven't been doing much else useful.  It was a 
lot of work, about 10 hours a week for 2 months.  The document I 
reviewed has significant differences from the one on the web site, but 
has a lot of structural similarities.  I think there is a major rewrite 
still in progress.  I pointed out all of the obvious stuff, features 
dropped long ago, references to out-of-date standards, missing ISO C 
2011 features, etc.

Jim