2013/10/29 Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>: > Since Richard looked at the machine description part of the port, I looked > at the other pieces. I'm happy with those pieces with the following minor > changes: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00520.html (libgcc): remove > the .file directive from crtzero.S. See > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg00123.html> for why such > directives are best avoided. >
Thank you for the link. Now I realize the rationale of why it is better to remove the .file directive. :) Modify it accordingly: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02382.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00522.html (documentation): > use @deftypefn rather than @table @code when documenting built-in > functions. In install.texi, say @samp{newlib} and @samp{mculib} instead > of using '' quotes. > Thanks for the comment. Now I modify it as you suggested: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02384.html > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com Thank you very much for the comments on libgcc and documentation parts. Here I re-list the v4 patch of nds32 port: Machine Description -- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02153.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02154.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02156.html Libgcc and Documentation -- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02382.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02384.html Are those nds32 port patches OK to be committed? Best regards, jasonwucj
