On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
<bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> I am pinging again this documentation patch
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
>> (pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.html on
>> febµ.17th 2014)
> and also pinged at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00387.html on march 8th
> 2014
Apologies for the delay. Please feel free to include me for patches I
may be able to help with.
> #### gcc/ChangeLog entry
>
> 2014-03-18 Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net>
>
> * doc/plugins.texi (Plugin callbacks): Mention
> PLUGIN_INCLUDE_FILE.
> Italicize plugin event names in description. Explain that
> PLUGIN_PRAGMAS has no sense for lto1. Explain
> PLUGIN_INCLUDE_FILE.
> Remind that no GCC functions should be called after
> PLUGIN_FINISH.
> Explain what pragmas with expansion are.
>
> #### the patch:
> Index: gcc/doc/plugins.texi
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/doc/plugins.texi (revision 207422)
> +++ gcc/doc/plugins.texi (working copy)
> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
> PLUGIN_EARLY_GIMPLE_PASSES_END,
> /* Called when a pass is first instantiated. */
> PLUGIN_NEW_PASS,
> +/* Called when a file is #include-d or given thru #line directive.
s/given thru/given via the/
> + Could happen many times. The event data is the included file path,
s/Could/This could/
> +Pragmas registered with @code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion} or
> +@code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion_and_data} are allowing
> +preprocessor expansions, like e.g.
I can't parse the last bit: "... are allowing preprocessor expansions,
like e.g.". Did you mean something like "support preprocessor
expansions. For example,"
Diego.
