On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:59:28 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there. >> Is there something I should add? I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the >> "host/target specific issues start here" section and there's some notes >> about binutils-2.24. We'll require binutils-2.28 (the first version that >> we're upstream in), I can add a note in that section about RISC-V as >> well if you think it's appropriate. > > I am generally a fan of keeping documentation short (lest it is > skipped or skimmed), but as long as necessary. > > In your case I don't think artificially blowing up the section on RISC-V > to match others would be helpful. However, given that binutils 2.28 is > so brand new, that I'd definitely mention. > > (My proposals/patches yesterday are about removing references to ten > year old versions of binutils from install.texi, quite the other end > of the spectrum.)
Makes sense. I think I found a few other problems in ours as well. How does this look? [PATCH] RISC-V documentation cleanups
