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 <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10102071810580.4137-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:54:34 +0100 (MET)
> > From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>

[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.

- Raw text -