[trans-mem] document -fgnu-tm

It seems we documented libitm, and forgot to document the main switch :).

OK for branch?
* doc/invoke.texi (C Dialect Options): Document -fgnu-tm.

On 11/03/2011 08:58 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> 	* doc/invoke.texi (C Dialect Options): Document -fgnu-tm.

Ok.


r~

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> OK for branch?

	* doc/invoke.texi (C Dialect Options): Document -fgnu-tm.

Index: doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
+When the option @option{-fgnu-tm} is specified, the compiler will
+generate code for the Linux variant of Intel's current Transactional

I assume this ought to be "GNU/Linux variant"?

+Memory ABI specification document (Revision 1.1, May 6 2009).  This is
+an experimental feature whose interface may change in future versions
+of GCC, as the official specification changes.  Please note that not
+all architectures are supported for this feature.

Where can the user find which platforms are supported?

+For more information on GCC's support for transactional memory, see
+the accompanying documentation for @file{libitm}.

Ah, here it is.  How does one find that documentation?

Gerald

Torvald, is this documentation somewhere public whose link we can add to
the committed patch below?  I know the latest draft is not available, but
at least Revision 1.1 which we reference below?

Aldy

> +Memory ABI specification document (Revision 1.1, May 6 2009).  This is
> +an experimental feature whose interface may change in future versions
> +of GCC, as the official specification changes.  Please note that not
> +all architectures are supported for this feature.
>
> Where can the user find which platforms are supported?
>
> +For more information on GCC's support for transactional memory, see
> +the accompanying documentation for @file{libitm}.
>
> Ah, here it is.  How does one find that documentation?

On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 14:08 -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> 
> Torvald, is this documentation somewhere public whose link we can add to
> the committed patch below?  I know the latest draft is not available, but
> at least Revision 1.1 which we reference below?

I don't know of any stable URL. The ABI PDF is linked to from
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-c-stm-compiler-prototype-edition/
but I don't think the final URL is supposed to be used for deep linking,
or guaranteed to be stable.

> > +Memory ABI specification document (Revision 1.1, May 6 2009).

This should be Revision 1.0.1, Nov 12 2008. The rev you had there is for
the API / language spec I think.

> This is
> > +an experimental feature whose interface may change in future versions
> > +of GCC, as the official specification changes.  Please note that not
> > +all architectures are supported for this feature.
> >
> > Where can the user find which platforms are supported?

This should be added to libitm too I guess.

> >
> > +For more information on GCC's support for transactional memory, see
> > +the accompanying documentation for @file{libitm}.
> >
> > Ah, here it is.  How does one find that documentation?

Can you put an xref there (or whatever you used for the other link)
instead of the @file{libitm}? Thanks!

On 11/05/2011 02:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> I don't know of any stable URL. The ABI PDF is linked to from
> http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-c-stm-compiler-prototype-edition/
> but I don't think the final URL is supposed to be used for deep linking,
> or guaranteed to be stable.

We have the GCC wiki.  We can put a copy there and know that it's
going to be stable.


r~

On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 14:38 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 02:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > I don't know of any stable URL. The ABI PDF is linked to from
> > http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-c-stm-compiler-prototype-edition/
> > but I don't think the final URL is supposed to be used for deep linking,
> > or guaranteed to be stable.
> 
> We have the GCC wiki.  We can put a copy there and know that it's
> going to be stable.

IANAL, but I don't see anything in the document's disclaimer/legal
section that would allow us to redistribute this document. IMHO, citing
it by using title, publisher (Intel), and date/revision should be okay
in absence of any better source.

Torvald

Richard Henderson wrote:
> We have the GCC wiki.  We can put a copy there and know that it's
> going to be stable.

Jumping on that topic: Is there actually a possibility to "undo" 
attachment deletes in the wiki? I remember someone using an recursive 
"wget" on the wiki, which deleted Graphite PDFs on the way.

The problem is that the Attachment page has, e.g.,

[delete | move | load | show] (2010-01-31 06:10:04, 337.6 KB) 
[[attachment:graphite2y-slides.pdf]]

And the script hit the delete link. I think contrary to "upload" there 
complicated check; I think it is even deleted right away without asking 
"are you sure?" - but it might be that it does and the crawler went over it.

In any case, I failed to find an "undelete" as user - and Sebastian was 
able to upload the files again.

Tobias