Joern Rennecke wrote: >> And if we need >> more (as I suspect), can we be specific about what toolflow we want to >> follow and what content will be generated? It would help if I could >> show RMS inputs and outputs, not just with some random example, but with >> GCC itself. Is someone willing to apply enough effort to produce at >> least some fragments of documentation using some method, and document >> that method for me, so that I can provide it to RMS. > > See: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02255.html
OK, I see what that is doing. Why did you choose to use a .def file rather than something more like Doxygen to generate the documentation? Consistency with existing practice of .def files in GCC? Or you don't like Doxygen-like tools? Or something else? (I'm not making a judgment here, but I need to understand why so that I can explain things to RMS.) > Search for GPL and/or GFDL for a sample of things that we currently > can't fix due to licensing issues. I'm happy to act as an advocate, but I don't have the time to do a lot of research. Would you please describe the steps and provide the inputs and outputs of the process for some of these issues? I want to able to show RMS an actual input file, an actual output file, and describe the transformation process that leads from one to the other. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
