On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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 specification document is outdated, and a new version is supposed to be 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?
Because creating a write up with content that will be available in a polished form in about 3 weeks from now is perhaps not the best use of resources? > 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. The C++ TM specification group is considering writing a tutorial, but there's still some discussion about who would actually do it. > 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. We document the differences to the Intel ABI, and why we think those differenes make sense. This is obviously not an effort targeting end users but required to eventually come up with a common ABI. We could have put all the comments about the ABI differences into the header files, but then it becomes harder to see the differences to the existing ABI specification by Intel. Torvald
