From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout-p-102.mailbox.org (mout-p-102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:0:465::102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3EC53858D33 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 22:38:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E3EC53858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=aarsen.me Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=aarsen.me Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [10.196.197.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-102.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PX6f63b80z9sbn; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 23:38:06 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aarsen.me; s=MBO0001; t=1678315086; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mr0GwESi0vE1LwSgSL585LrbDKBX6yYC/yD0ysa/g/Q=; b=ozwfiBSblWkEfQbck2eb9+wryXl/3XCd+RTgSi66igQd7XhrnVAR6+RijuyBKKbwag3ZC2 9C14JvftU3jS/DtAeNo8kiL8SuZ0WDZrSN670pDH2dN+6nEOe2X76Fb5ah/FJD+FOPLUu7 o4qrZ8wgy+ebFTh9EoSoZP1jaM9eCjGy9COG8mvNM8ovAnVEiTXBV/Wtqu7hEtP9bWexvb IJb7Rm1x29aF1suZL//bsnNQFluixkLMgS8JH7vXc1VswLQeaUj8/7yjCzq7scgpBVh094 JJ0OiVKZmEzNFskwXtvWiO1Csg0XgYmcUoHqXmwuX1JXP4DJpGhziLa0ACDvgg== References: <20230223102714.3606058-1-arsen@aarsen.me> <76f92bd2-7d4b-15ba-12ca-8de44e91b886@codesourcery.com> <86lek7txey.fsf@aarsen.me> From: Arsen =?utf-8?Q?Arsenovi=C4=87?= To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A small Texinfo refinement Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 22:22:28 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <86a60m98dz.fsf@aarsen.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sandra Loosemore writes: > On 3/8/23 02:11, Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 wrote: >> Sandra Loosemore writes: >>=20 >>> On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> I've rerendered the updated documentation with latest development >>>> Texinfo (as some of the changes I made for the purposes of the GCC >>>> manual still aren't in releases) at: >>>> https://www.aarsen.me/~arsen/final/ >>> >>> Ummm. I don't think GCC's documentation should depend on an unreleased= version >>> of Texinfo. Currently install.texi documents that version 4.7 or later= is >>> required, 4.8 for "make pdf"; did I miss something in your patch set th= at bumps >>> this requirement? Exactly what features do you depend on that are not = yet >>> supported by an official Texinfo release? >> This patch should still build with older Texinfo versions (albeit, I >> hadn't tested 4.7, I missed that requirement). The unreleased version >> should be installed on the server building HTML documentation as it >> produces better results w.r.t clickable anchors and index-in-table >> handling. It should not be a hard dependency, and should only degrade >> to its current state should in-dev Texinfo be missing. > > Hmmm, OK. We presently have Texinfo version 6.7 installed here, so I'll = give > that a try. I'm not sure I'd be able to detect problems with incorrect H= TML > anchors or whatever, though. As an example, let's take this link: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wp= edantic This should place you below the item line this index entry refers to, and there aren't any copiable anchors (see equivalent in my render for an example of those), both of which were often named as annoyances with the onlinedocs while the Sphinx experiment was taking place. A similar thing happens in the standalone and Emacs info viewers (but that's less noticeable there since the cursor is placed in the middle of the screen when jumping to an index entry there). Try, for instance, 'info gcc Wpedantic' (your cursor will be placed just below the item line). The fix for the first of these issues should already be applied by Gerald (in the reordering commits, IIRC at least, save for one that I created later because someone snuck in new "misplaced" indices), and that fix should also fix up previous versions of Texinfo. Even with this change, the copiable anchors will remain missing since released Texinfo versions lack some AST transformations that enable those. Otherwise, manuals should work fine with older releases, unless I missed something when refactoring @defbuiltin and removing @gols (which I do believe are superfluous with current versions of texinfo.tex, which is why I bumped that too). To be clear, the anchor-related stuff is entirely specific to HTML output. > Most people building GCC from source probably use whatever versions of bu= ild > dependencies are provided by their OS distribution. In our group we need > reproducible builds for long-term support so we maintain our own list of > dependencies and normally update to the latest stable versions only once = every > few years unless there is a hard requirement to upgrade some particular t= ool > meanwhile. I personally do not know how the manuals for the GCC web site= are > built, but it seems kind of important to make sure that works as intended= since > it's the main online resource for ordinary GCC users. Yes, I can get behind this sentiment too. I don't mean to impose a hard dependency on the bleeding edge of Texinfo. My target was indeed the GCC website and ordinary users. >> It might be worth bumping the minimum, 4.7 is a version from 2004; in >> the meanwhile, I'll try a few older versions too. > > I agree that it's unlikely anyone is building current GCC with a Texinfo > version as old as 4.7 any more, and it may be that the manual doesn't even > build properly with such an old release due to existing unintentional > dependencies on newer features, independently of your patch. If we do up= date > the version, there's a version check in configure.ac and some hack for > "makeinfo 4.7 brokenness" in doc/install.texi2html that need to be change= d, as > well as install.texi. FWIW, I (briefly) tested with Texinfo 6.0, and output seems okay. On 5.0, I got a few warnings, but I think even 6.0 is apt considering its age. I haven't given it a proper scrutiny, though (workdays are busy this time of year..). > -Sandra Thanks, have a lovely evening. =2D-=20 Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iOYEARYKAI4WIQT+4rPRE/wAoxYtYGFSwpQwHqLEkwUCZAkOSF8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0RkVF MkIzRDExM0ZDMDBBMzE2MkQ2MDYxNTJDMjk0MzAxRUEyQzQ5MxAcYXJzZW5AYWFy c2VuLm1lAAoJEFLClDAeosSTjd0BAOkEs07bwElGk7pdthU9WehGWozkM0H2jmOA ECfprTWFAP9rW8TJkuUEG23cl6+Nuwr/48bxOdolfmEM9VXxUPU6BA== =SJz5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--