Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :) | | However, my real point still stands: | | 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our | current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not | because they are out of date, but because they don't give them | information on what they really want to know.
Then, let see what information they want and how they can be put there. [...] | 3. We should seriously consider writing and maintaining different guides | and references than the ones we have. | I'm happy to go talk to the people who feel this way, and find out what | it is exactly that they want, though i'm pretty sure it's something like | | A. Tree language reference guide (ie, semantics, etc) | B. RTL language reference guide (ie, semantics) written in a simple | format like: | | RTL Instructions and how they are linked | RTL modes and what they represent. | | Then | For each RTL code: | | CODE - what it is used for and represents | examples of how operations are represented using CODE | valid flags for CODE | valid macros for CODE | | instead of the current: | | "here's a bunch of things about rtl. | here's a bunch of things about rtl flags. | Here's a bunch of things about rtl macros. | Here's a small bunch of things about rtl operations. | here's a bunch of things about rtl modes | Here's some more stuff about insns" | | C. How to write a basic RTL pass | D. How to write a basic tree-ssa pass | E. Reference guides for analysis providers in tree-ssa (IE what we | provide and how to make use of provided alias info, data dependence | info, immediate uses, etc) | F. Reference guide for analysis providers in RTL. I see no reason why those should not be part of our main documentation reposotroty along with or replacing our traditional documentation. It appears to me that you're relating unrelated effects and causes. -- Gaby
