On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > We are aware that the TM language constructs should be documented in > extend.texi. However, the most recent public version of the C++ TM > specification document is outdated, and a new version is supposed to be > released in a few weeks. > > Therefore, we'd like to wait until the release of the new specification > document so that we can just cite this new document instead of having to > cite the old one and list all the changes.
Why can't you just describe the extensions yourself? Shipping something undocumented is just pointless. And even if there's a specification somewhere users typically need a end user oriented manual too, which a specification is not. On the other hand documenting the ABI like you currently do doesn't seem very interesting to me, I don't know who ever would need that. If someone wants to implement their own STM they can as well read the spec themselves or read some header files. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
