https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> It's nonsense to suggest that only maintainers can make such changes to the
> docs, since it's clear and obvious that GCC does not provide everything the
> standard refers to as "the implementation", that doesn't require specialized
> knowledge.
>
> Unfocused ranting and complaining isn't going to achieve anything. If you're
> not happy with the docs, suggest changes.
For example, anybody could propose something like this:
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -136,6 +136,14 @@ designated by @var{byte-size} in the following text.
Refer to the NIST,
IEC, and other relevant national and international standards for the full
listing and explanation of the binary and decimal byte size prefixes.
+GCC only provides part of what the C and C++ standards refer to as
+"an implementation" of the language. To get a conforming hosted implementation
+it is necessary to combine GCC with a C library, libc, which is usually part
+of the operating system, e.g., the GNU C Library provides libc for GNU/Linux
+systems. Some C and C++ programs might require linking to additional libraries
+in order to get a complete hosted implementation, e.g., @option{-lm},
+@option{-latomic}, and @option{-pthread} may be required in some cases.
+
@c man end
@xref{Option Index}, for an index to GCC's options.
I'm sure this could be improved, but it's a concrete suggestion instead of
unfocused complaints.
