Hi Steve,
I wonder if it would be possible to add to CVS a link called gcc-stable,
which would point to the currently preferred version?
As for the installation instructions, most of the packages I install
have an entry INSTALL.
I would not occur to me to look in the gcc man or info pages for
installation instructions.
The common sequence is that some package tells me that I need something
else, so I go get it and read the INSTALL section and install it. Then I
read the manual.
I do understand your frustration.
Thanks,
Garst
Steve Underwood wrote:
It tells you what you need to collect, and the commands you need to
use. What else would you want.
IMHO a little note that the newer versions aren't stable/working
would be good. In that manner you'd inform the users that this doc is
still updated and they would trust the source saying that gcc 3.2.3
is still in the game.
Fair point, but I am not sure how to deal with it. The manual hasn't
changed for some time because it hasn't needed to change. However,
that makes it look like it isn't being maintained. Should I just bump
the update date every few weeks to make it look fresh? :-)
And the naming clobber with the CVS gcc version is confusing at best.
I had to do 5 gcc recompilations before I found a working official
gcc + msp430 gcc patch combination. So yes: documentation is very
important at this stage, but its not quite there yet.
There is a not in the CVS directories to say which GCC they do with,
but that isn't really a solution. Renaming things in CVS is very
troublesome, so once the names slipped out of step they stayed like
that. If Dimitry can get MSP430 support merged into CVS at RedHat,
maybe the versions in our CVS will not matter much for too long. :-)
