3 ms·

I don't know what the sarcasm is helping. Somebody's working on documenting it and they're not done yet, and they're documenting that too.

bragr 4y ago
Yeah, I'm being salty, but at the same gcc is notoriously unapproachable while also struggling to pull in new blood. Considering the long, but sporadic update history [1] of this documentation, I am not optimistic about this effort turning it around. Seems more likely to become yet another one of the out of date or incomplete tutorials lying around [2]. GCC's own contribution docs [3] cop to the fact that most new contributors are doing paid work on behalf of chip and system designers, so for GCC's sake I hope it remains the must have compiler for new chips because that seems to be its main source of fresh blood at this point. This blog post [4] from a GCC and autotools developer popped up on here a month ago, and while it doesn't address GCC, if you squint I think you can apply most of the criticisms to GCC as well. [1] https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-newbies-guide/commits/master https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-newbies-guide/commits/ma... [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/contributewhy.html https://gcc.gnu.org/contributewhy.html [4] https://www.owlfolio.org/development/autoconf-swot/ https://www.owlfolio.org/development/autoconf-swot/
- dralley 4y ago
  It'll lose that too as more and more low-level software is written in LLVM-backed languages.
- pvg 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm being salty You've hit upon a reliable way to turn that kind of comment into a good comment which is to imagine the grumpcomment getting downvoted, flagged, complained about or mod-scolded, writing a defense of the grumpcomment and then just posting that, instead of the original comment. Works every time way more than 60% of the time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

bragr 4y ago

Yeah, I'm being salty, but at the same gcc is notoriously unapproachable while also struggling to pull in new blood. Considering the long, but sporadic update history [1] of this documentation, I am not optimistic about this effort turning it around. Seems more likely to become yet another one of the out of date or incomplete tutorials lying around [2]. GCC's own contribution docs [3] cop to the fact that most new contributors are doing paid work on behalf of chip and system designers, so for GCC's sake I hope it remains the must have compiler for new chips because that seems to be its main source of fresh blood at this point. This blog post [4] from a GCC and autotools developer popped up on here a month ago, and while it doesn't address GCC, if you squint I think you can apply most of the criticisms to GCC as well. [1] https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-newbies-guide/commits/master https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-newbies-guide/commits/ma... [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/contributewhy.html https://gcc.gnu.org/contributewhy.html [4] https://www.owlfolio.org/development/autoconf-swot/ https://www.owlfolio.org/development/autoconf-swot/

dralley 4y ago
It'll lose that too as more and more low-level software is written in LLVM-backed languages.
pvg 4y ago
Yeah, I'm being salty You've hit upon a reliable way to turn that kind of comment into a good comment which is to imagine the grumpcomment getting downvoted, flagged, complained about or mod-scolded, writing a defense of the grumpcomment and then just posting that, instead of the original comment. Works every time way more than 60% of the time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]