On 09/27/2017 03:05 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On 09/27/2017 10:10 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On 09/26/2017 02:26 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Andreas,
diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
index 307c726..3acfd85 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
@@ -1398,6 +1398,9 @@ Target supports a vector misalign access.
@item vect_no_align
Target does not support a vector alignment mechanism.
+@item vect_no_peel
+Target does not require any loop peeling for alignment purposes.
+
@item vect_no_int_min_max
Target does not support a vector min and max instruction on @code{int}.
please keep the items sorted alphabetically.
The items do not appear to be sorted alphabetically.
they should be. Your patch makes the ordering even more random.
Patch to fix this preapproved ;-)
The items rather appear to be arranged by subject. Does it really make
sense do pull items like this
apart just to have it in alphabetical order?
@item vect_intfloat_cvt
Target supports conversion from @code{signed int} to @code{float}.
@item vect_uintfloat_cvt
Target supports conversion from @code{unsigned int} to @code{float}.
@item vect_floatint_cvt
Target supports conversion from @code{float} to @code{signed int}.
@item vect_floatuint_cvt
Target supports conversion from @code{float} to @code{unsigned int}.
I've added the no_peel item intentionally to the hw_misalign/no_align block.
granted, there are some attempts at that, but I find it hard to make my
way through that longish list. The way it is, you have to skip through
the whole list beginning to end. Texinfo seems to have no subsubsection
which would allow to make the sub-grouping explicit...
Let's hear what Sandra thinks.
Ummmm. There is no common convention in the GCC documentation and other
parts of the manual do deliberately diverge from alphabetization in
places. There's a perpetual tension between putting the most
commonly-needed information first vs grouping things by related concepts
vs alphabetize vs the tendency of people to insert new items at random
places in an existing list regardless of how it's previously been
organized. :-(
Alphabetical lists are useful when you already know the name of the
thing you are searching for, but almost everybody reads the
documentation in a web browser or PDF viewer with a search feature
nowadays so you can find the term no matter how the list is sorted. So
I'd say we shouldn't alphabetize as a matter of policy if there is some
other organization that makes sense.
In this case, the section is already broken into multiple sublists by
topic, most of the sublists are fairly short, and where there's some
discernible sort order within the sublists, it seems to be grouping
related things together rather than alphabetical. So I wouldn't insist
on alphabetizing this particular sublist either.
-Sandra
