From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9595 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2008 07:47:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 9583 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2008 07:47:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from province.act-europe.fr (HELO province.act-europe.fr) (212.99.106.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:47:26 +0000 Received: by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 525) id 0EA08166D4B; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:47:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:44:00 -0000 From: Arnaud Charlet To: Ralf Wildenhues , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, ADA, DOC] PR 15479: Crossrefs and links Message-ID: <20080319074717.GA22659@adacore.com> References: <20080315135145.GG17579@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080316182210.GA37514@adacore.com> <20080316220220.GA3899@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080317075928.GA90987@adacore.com> <20080317191116.GB22463@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080318075330.GC82298@adacore.com> <20080318214745.GG2094@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080318220220.GA17497@adacore.com> <20080318220842.GH2094@ins.uni-bonn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080318220842.GH2094@ins.uni-bonn.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg01120.txt.bz2 > > > but both should now have the > > > same name? Or should just the UNW version be renamed to gnat_ugn.info? > > > Should it still be possible with xgnatugn to generate an UNW version > > > with the gnat_ugn_unw name? > > > > Preferably, yes. > > ... this requires that we need at least one other substitution (the > @setfilename must be choosable as gnat_ugn or gnat_ugn_unw for the UNW > version), which kind of contradicts with this requirement: > > > In other words, if you could keep xgnatugn as it is today, > > that'd be easier to handle. Well, I see where the discrepency is. xgnatugn generates gnat_ugn_xxx.texi, while you're talking about the .info generated file. So we were talking about two different things. It is fine and actually desirable to remove the setfilename instructions in gnat_ugn.texi to generate a filename other than gnat_ugn.info. This is actually what we do at AdaCore. In other words, it's fine to require that gnat_ugn*.texi will always generate a gnat_ugn.info. Arno