On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:29:22 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> A recent mailing list post about install.texi cleanup suggested I >> take a look at ours, and there were a few problems: >> >> * No table of contents entries >> * Not alphabetically ordered >> * Missing a note about requiring binutils-2.28 > > This looks fine with a few changes, thank you. > > Perhaps a bit repetitive? I'm wondering, would it make sense to > have general riscv64-*-* entries that cover the general items?
It is a bit repetitive, but I copied the format from someone else. I'd be OK just having a single riscv* entry, as it's really one ISA: it's all described in one manual and was all designed, implemented, and released at the same time; and while there are riscv32/riscv64 as variants, there's actually more (with/without floating point, for example). >> 2017-03-13 Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com >> >> * doc/install.texi (Specific) <riscv32-*-elf>: Add table of contents >> link. >> <riscv32-*-linux>: Likewise. >> <riscv64-*-elf>: Likewise >> <riscv64-*-linux>: Likewise. > > Here I'd just say > > * doc/install.texi (Specific): Add foo, bar, didl, doo to the > table of contents. > >> <riscv32-*-elf>: Add a note about requiring binutils-2.28. > > Here and in the text, binutils 2.28 (without the dash). > > Approved. Committed. > PS: We usually send patches to the gcc-patches@ list. Sorry, I must have just mis-typed.
