X-Authentication-Warning: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:22:40 +0100 (MET) From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker X-Sender: broeker AT acp3bf To: Eli Zaretskii cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: trouble with MSDOS Macro In-Reply-To: <7263-Wed07Feb2001190613+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:54:34 +0100 (MET) > > From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker [quoting the CPP manual:] > > system and machine is in use. This manual, being for all systems and > > machines, cannot tell you exactly what their names are; instead, we > > offer a list of some typical ones. You can use `cpp -dM' to see the > > values of predefined macros; see *Note Invocation::. > > Yes, I know about "gcc -E -dM". But I don't think this should be a > reason not to document the predefined macros in the manual. The existing manual already explicitly tells that it 'cannot' do that, so it won't. I guess it'd be hard to convince the GCC mainainers to abandon that rule in favour of the type of documentation you suggest. > Many programs show their options when invoked with --help, but the > manual still documents these options. Right. But GCC is quite different from many other programs. The main point of difference would be that GCC itself does not define the specs file, and thus the predefined macros: we supply them with a copy of the specs file as part of the GCC porting effort to DJGPP, but it's still our specs file, not GCC's. At least that's what I understood the current situation to be. In that case, the list of predefined macros is either documented as it already is (i.e. "whatever gcc -E -dM outputs"), or if we insist on having it in some info document, it'd have to be libc.info or the User Guide, not gcc.info. Specs is essentially part of DJGPP and its libc, not of GCC, so its contents and effects should be documented in our own docs. This would be true as long as there's a chance to update DJGPP and GCC individually. If the predefined macros can be modified without editing any file that came with gcc*b.zip, their documentation doesn't belong into gcc*.zip, either. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.