suggest that
Andrew or Richard commit the patch after the last final tweaks from
your side.
So, at this point I have:
- Made the modifications described above.
- Updated the web pages on LGS.
- Produced the diff you requested of the changes since the last patch:
http://www.LimeGreenSocks/gcc/g02.zip
- Produced a new .patch file: http://www.LimeGreenSocks/gcc/extend08.zip
Unless I hear otherwise, I will post the updated patch (with a corrected
changelog) on this thread ~24 hours from this post.
It can then be committed as per usual.
dw
On 4/29/2014 5:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 29/04/14 11:47, dw wrote:
While I'm waiting to hear back from Gerald about my responses to his
other corrections, I have answered one question:
How does the user know what is dialect #0? Same for the others?
When I originally wrote
one dialect will likely fail if compiled
using
another.
This keeps the machine-specific details with the already
machine-specific compile options. While this option only applies to
i386 currently, this text leaves the option open should some other
platform make use of it in the future.
Unless someone says otherwise, I'm calling this question resolved.
dw
use assembler directives that expand to more
+space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
+If this happens then the assembler produces a diagnostic saying that
+a label is unreachable.
"produces" -> "may produce" ?
Changed.
+Sometimes when writing inline asm code, you need to make an operand be a
@code{asm}
Changed.
Hurray, and that's it for now.
Whew.
If you send an updated patch, I'd appreciate if you could also just
send a diff between the file as it is now (after the current patch
applied) and after those updates so that we can see what just changed
in between the two reviews.
I haven't attached a diff yet. Rather than fill everyone's inbox with
partial updates, I'll wait until we've agreed on the questions above.
If someone just can't wait, the web pages mentioned above have all the
items I marked as Changed.
BTW, do you want the standard "diff" output? Or diff -u?
As I wrote above, I approve if you make these changes -- or reply
noting where and why you did not -- and Andrew and Richard ack.
I've tried to make it clear when I made a change, and when I disagreed
with your proposed change. If my explanations as to why I didn't make a
change aren't clear or if you still disagree, let me know. There are
several points where I'm looking for your opinion or clarification
before proceeding.
I'd also like to make one last plug for having you at least page thru
one of the output formats (such as the html I linked to at the top).
While looking at the actual .texi lets you catch things like @ifhtml and
@cindex errors, I believe structure and formatting are clearer in html.
What's more, I feel confident saying more people will view the html text
than the texi, so a little extra effort to make sure the html is correct
is merited.
Thanks for your feedback,
dw
re
moving towards it sometimes wouldn't be required anymore, but
that comment was made about a year ago and I don't know if
anything has actually changed, so: assuming this is "still"
required, are copyright assignment papers in place with the FSF
for these changes? I can'
d items together.
If there are no more comments by this time tomorrow, I'll re-post the
"final" patch.
Thanks,
dw
On 4/8/2014 10:29 PM, dw wrote:
On 4/8/2014 4:17 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, dw wrote:
Problem description:
The existing documentation
