On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> A recent mailing list post about install.texi cleanup suggested I
> take a look at ours, and there were a few problems:
>
> * No table of contents entries
> * Not alphabetically ordered
> * Missing a note about requiring binutils-2.28
This looks fine with a few changes, thank you.
Perhaps a bit repetitive? I'm wondering, would it make sense to
have general riscv64-*-* entries that cover the general items?
> 2017-03-13 Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com
>
> * doc/install.texi (Specific) <riscv32-*-elf>: Add table of contents
> link.
> <riscv32-*-linux>: Likewise.
> <riscv64-*-elf>: Likewise
> <riscv64-*-linux>: Likewise.
Here I'd just say
* doc/install.texi (Specific): Add foo, bar, didl, doo to the
table of contents.
> <riscv32-*-elf>: Add a note about requiring binutils-2.28.
Here and in the text, binutils 2.28 (without the dash).
Approved.
Gerald
PS: We usually send patches to the gcc-patches@ list.
