From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 5 03:54:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244CB16A4CE; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:54:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920A443D2D; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:54:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([192.168.0.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i953sFex044689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:54:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:54:59 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: "Li-Lun Wang (Leland)" Message-Id: <20041004235459.18dfa4ab@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200410050300.i9530mcZ071648@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200410050300.i9530mcZ071648@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org cc: rafan@infor.org Subject: Re: docs/72285: GCC manuals are out of sync X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:54:17 -0000 On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:00:48 GMT "Li-Lun Wang (Leland)" wrote: > The following reply was made to PR docs/72285; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: "Li-Lun Wang (Leland)" > To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, rafan@infor.org > Cc: > Subject: Re: docs/72285: GCC manuals are out of sync > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:58:06 -0500 > > Hi, > > Digging into GCC's CVS repository, the latest version of gcc.1 was dated > almost three years ago for gcc-3.0.4. Since the current gcc.1 in > FreeBSD's src tree is for version 3.2.2, I suppose that it couldn't be > from the vendor. Can we know how we had managed to have a gcc.1 for > 3.2.2 and do the same thing for 3.4.2? I *think* we only maintain gcc.1 because a lot of people like manual pages over the 'info' commands. Now to figure out how we can update the manual page (if needed). -- Tom Rhodes