From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CA03858D33 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 01:19:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C6CA03858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id y15-20020a17090aa40f00b00237ad8ee3a0so652619pjp.2 for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:19:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678324783; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=wwZuoVWED4DNbJdhmAlA1mIFuGxJBkpdbWF8uVEo5eQ=; b=cDYESPD+LVzcv5dDFhsfdzinFOZlD30XG5goSY6QTSvYJKTImwuRlSoO7n3Tt3Q1Fr MzFEes68FhTVgfQCOo+dvyVhvNysUsy8CvqEmFqd4QW6hfHICS4GP4rISBXrKkHiRaMc npNW262DskS/uPusSvyJ03OAahdTtSTsmhU45JuKPUlQy85mx2/QHSoaqTLrjBVItKCE uxVWoPe/CxLDJXKunOD4uWPvp24iK+SPW8n2kS4SOj25uGS7GhXO0ZzKzIm/YfHwUdCf lCc/g/sXk2TQtrvWLdAn8aECahvuEmZjcEljK5B2kKZoVRWPVOjCHdPoG4dHNF1kGDob S+JA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678324783; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wwZuoVWED4DNbJdhmAlA1mIFuGxJBkpdbWF8uVEo5eQ=; b=hyUY+z5uV8+fRR5ucki74bhfGnPfs5u9LM+aPhA11aLsRxUlgFPXFQLCQTozpemS/n mWXfLvY/JwhHyObH7atWao0+lMAXhH0vwf4mYKqW2uoKLJHwUC7axTsED7ymfzIFb10O GCk3gwikrgiox8jYD9g+3sksKoRwPalhnWmeBnfCNXLac6LyDyWphAlaiRKveVH/vrUI OomNlHWQFzn+7UHbi9wDAOXolYfaYUlgKBY96bnsGasnH6/T+njYkUOJVpbT60tMl/2B ORZu/wLx7J8zS3HKseH4M1zMFq1Ae3I8XrsZc3QZzN3V3n8QhBkmFbCyb6FoV4W3trUL N+zQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUZvlI4COx6hvJbLMQwpZW/ouh1Yzw3cOdSXdyY6xGDkTKmGtBB fZpDI9kRDaJZBaevB4C/ntkOs6s4gaMvh2baBdU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/UUd4G+Yx4Izl7XZEz5zrwj8FLXDFflzIxxBbdPKRV9EMAM6N973/4mPy54wexvPOy4pKK34GdE0NQM7bSWY8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a04:b0:234:ba6f:c97a with SMTP id o4-20020a17090a0a0400b00234ba6fc97amr7518888pjo.3.1678324782536; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:19:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230223102714.3606058-1-arsen@aarsen.me> <76f92bd2-7d4b-15ba-12ca-8de44e91b886@codesourcery.com> <86lek7txey.fsf@aarsen.me> <86a60m98dz.fsf@aarsen.me> <708c48a9-a64d-6485-3e42-1ef9d97ffc7e@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <708c48a9-a64d-6485-3e42-1ef9d97ffc7e@codesourcery.com> From: Andrew Pinski Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 17:19:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A small Texinfo refinement To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Arsen_Arsenovi=C4=87?= , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer , Joseph Myers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 3/8/23 14:22, Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 wrote: > > > > Sandra Loosemore writes: > > > >> On 3/8/23 02:11, Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 wrote: > >>> Sandra Loosemore writes: > >>> > >>>> 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 unrelea= sed version > >>>> of Texinfo. Currently install.texi documents that version 4.7 or la= ter is > >>>> required, 4.8 for "make pdf"; did I miss something in your patch set= that bumps > >>>> this requirement? Exactly what features do you depend on that are n= ot 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 versio= n > >>> 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 degrad= e > >>> 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 incorrec= t HTML > >> 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#inde= x-Wpedantic > > > > 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 o= f > > 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. > > OK, I can see the difference there between the current online docs, the > set you produced with the unreleased Texinfo support, and what I got > building with Texinfo 6.7. > > > Otherwise, manuals should work fine with older releases, unless I misse= d > > 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). > > I did a few spot-checks here and there of those changes. I saw a couple > of line break problems but they turn out to be due to existing errors in > the .texi files that were not introduced by your (mostly mechanical) > changes. > > >> Most people building GCC from source probably use whatever versions of= build > >> dependencies are provided by their OS distribution. In our group we n= eed > >> reproducible builds for long-term support so we maintain our own list = of > >> dependencies and normally update to the latest stable versions only on= ce every > >> few years unless there is a hard requirement to upgrade some particula= r tool > >> meanwhile. I personally do not know how the manuals for the GCC web s= ite are > >> built, but it seems kind of important to make sure that works as inten= ded 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 har= d > > 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 Texin= fo > >> 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= update > >> 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 cha= nged, 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..). > > Texinfo 6.0 was released in 2015, 5.0 in 2013. FWIW, Trusty Tahr (the > current oldest Ubuntu LTS release) has 5.2. 4.7 was released in 2004, I > don't know why anyone would still be trying to use that unless it's > needed for building legacy code from the same era. CentOS/RHEL 7 includes texinfo 5.1. That is the oldest distro I think mostly supports building with. That is the oldest I do builds of GCC with even for the trunk. Thanks, Andrew > > I think we could do away with the requirement for a specific minimum > version, and make install.texi say something similar to what it says for > e.g. awk -- just use a "recent" version, and note that new versions > produce better output and very old ones may produce diagnostics. I'll > add that do my own todo list. > > -Sandra