On 12/16/2016 10:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
That's likely the manual RMS kept asking folks (semi-privately) to review. My response was consistently that such review should happen publicly, which RMS opposed for reasons I don't recall.
I reviewed it, on the grounds that a happy rms is good for the gcc project, and because I haven't been doing much else useful. It was a lot of work, about 10 hours a week for 2 months. The document I reviewed has significant differences from the one on the web site, but has a lot of structural similarities. I think there is a major rewrite still in progress. I pointed out all of the obvious stuff, features dropped long ago, references to out-of-date standards, missing ISO C 2011 features, etc.
Jim
