Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-13 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 02/12/2012 04:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote: Checked in the shortened version and changes. How thats? seems better :-) Yep, thanks! There is just a minor grammor I went ahead fixing. On the title page, I was thinking to refer to the release notes e

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-12 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Checked in the shortened version and changes. How thats? > seems better :-) Yep, thanks! There is just a minor grammor I went ahead fixing. On the title page, I was thinking to refer to the release notes entry (gcc-4.7/changes.html), and would make

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 02/08/2012 06:19 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: This news item on the main page is quite long if you compare it with the others and probably fills most of that column on page 1; could you cut this signficantly and instead link to the gcc-4.7/changes.html and have some of the good general backg

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
Hi Andrew, On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote: OK, hows this look? I added a link in the news as well. Index: index.html === + Atomic memory model support + [2011-11-06] + C++11/C11 http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM"

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 8 February 2012 21:49, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > That's what I get for following the same pattern as those TM jokers. Heh :) > OK, hows this look?  I added a link in the news as well. Looks great to me.

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 02/08/2012 04:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/02/2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 02/08/2012 04:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Should they be? How's this look for a news item and the changes file? Formatting seems fine. The news item is missing a + in C++ It's not critical for the cha

Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 08/02/2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 02/08/2012 04:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> Should they be? > How's this look for a news item and the changes file? Formatting seems > fine. The news item is missing a + in C++ It's not critical for the changes.html page since it's not likely to be p

[PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

2012-02-08 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 02/08/2012 04:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Should they be? How's this look for a news item and the changes file? Formatting seems fine. Is there no changelog for docs? Andrew Index: index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdoc