> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2012 09:29
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Inconsistency between code and docs
>
> Can you instead produce a patch?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2012 09:29
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Inconsistency between code and docs
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:28
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>>
>> I think the bug is in the documentation, and that
>> TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION should accept an IDENTIFIER_NODE.
>>
>> Ian
>
> I will be reporting this with bugzilla then.
Can you instead produce a patch?
> Thanks for the clarification,
>
>
> I think the bug is in the documentation, and that
> TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION should accept an IDENTIFIER_NODE.
>
> Ian
I will be reporting this with bugzilla then.
Thanks for the clarification,
Paulo Matos
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> I have found a strange inconsistency between code and docs for
> TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION.
>
> Docs say
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gccint/File-Framework.html#index-TARGET_005fASM_005fNAMED_005fSECTION-447
Hello,
I have found a strange inconsistency between code and docs for
TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION.
Docs say
(http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gccint/File-Framework.html#index-TARGET_005fASM_005fNAMED_005fSECTION-4472):
" If decl is non-NULL, it is the VAR_DECL or FUNCTION_DECL with