[PATCH, doc]: Fix a bunch of warnings in *.texi files

[PATCH, doc]: Fix a bunch of warnings in *.texi files

[Uros Bizjak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

Hello!

Attached patch fixes:

md.texi:1057: warning: node next `Constraints' in menu `Asm Labels'
and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
extend.texi:7175: warning: node `Asm Labels' is next for `Size of an
asm' in sectioning but not in menu
extend.texi:7175: warning: node prev `Size of an asm' in menu
`Explicit Reg Vars' and in sectioning `Constraints' differ
extend.texi:7197: warning: node prev `Asm Labels' in menu
`Constraints' and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
extend.texi:7245: warning: node `Size of an asm' is next for `Explicit
Reg Vars' in menu but not in sectioning

as seen when compiling on Fedora 20.

2014-05-17  Uros Bizjak  <ubizjak@gmail.com>

    * doc/extend.texi (Size of an asm): Move node text according
    to its @menu entry position.

Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN.

Uros.

[-- Attachment #2: d.diff.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2841 bytes --]

Index: doc/extend.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/extend.texi	(revision 210549)
+++ doc/extend.texi	(working copy)
@@ -7172,28 +7172,6 @@
 @include md.texi
 @raisesections
 
-@node Size of an asm
-@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
-
-Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
-in order to generate correct code.  Because the final length of the
-code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
-assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be.  It
-does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
-@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
-instruction supported by that processor.  (When working out the number
-of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
-whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
-typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
-
-Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
-code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
-pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
-instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
-space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
-If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
-a label is unreachable.
-
 @node Asm Labels
 @subsection Controlling Names Used in Assembler Code
 @cindex assembler names for identifiers
@@ -7277,6 +7255,28 @@
 specified for that operand in the @code{asm}.)
 @end itemize
 
+@node Size of an asm
+@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
+
+Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
+in order to generate correct code.  Because the final length of the
+code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
+assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be.  It
+does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
+@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
+instruction supported by that processor.  (When working out the number
+of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
+whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
+typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
+
+Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
+code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
+pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
+instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
+space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
+If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
+a label is unreachable.
+
 @menu
 * Global Reg Vars::
 * Local Reg Vars::

Re: [PATCH, doc]: Fix a bunch of warnings in *.texi files

[David Wohlferd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]

My bad.  My version of makeinfo wasn't reporting these errors.

However, this isn't right either.  There are two subsections that are 
now under "Size of an asm" that should be under "Variables in Specified 
Registers."  How about this (attached)?

dw

On 5/17/2014 6:06 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch fixes:
>
> md.texi:1057: warning: node next `Constraints' in menu `Asm Labels'
> and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
> extend.texi:7175: warning: node `Asm Labels' is next for `Size of an
> asm' in sectioning but not in menu
> extend.texi:7175: warning: node prev `Size of an asm' in menu
> `Explicit Reg Vars' and in sectioning `Constraints' differ
> extend.texi:7197: warning: node prev `Asm Labels' in menu
> `Constraints' and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
> extend.texi:7245: warning: node `Size of an asm' is next for `Explicit
> Reg Vars' in menu but not in sectioning
>
> as seen when compiling on Fedora 20.
>
> 2014-05-17  Uros Bizjak  <ubizjak@gmail.com>
>
>      * doc/extend.texi (Size of an asm): Move node text according
>      to its @menu entry position.
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN.
>
> Uros.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: extend.texi.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name="extend.texi.patch", Size: 2844 bytes --]

Index: extend.texi
===================================================================
--- extend.texi	(revision 210575)
+++ extend.texi	(working copy)
@@ -7267,28 +7267,6 @@
 specified for that operand in the @code{asm}.)
 @end itemize
 
-@node Size of an asm
-@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
-
-Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
-in order to generate correct code.  Because the final length of the
-code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
-assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be.  It
-does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
-@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
-instruction supported by that processor.  (When working out the number
-of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
-whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
-typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
-
-Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
-code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
-pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
-instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
-space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
-If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
-a label is unreachable.
-
 @menu
 * Global Reg Vars::
 * Local Reg Vars::
@@ -7467,6 +7445,28 @@
 asm ("sysint" : "=r" (result) : "0" (p1), "r" (p2));
 @end smallexample
 
+@node Size of an asm
+@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
+
+Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
+in order to generate correct code.  Because the final length of the
+code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
+assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be.  It
+does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
+@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
+instruction supported by that processor.  (When working out the number
+of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
+whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
+typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
+
+Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
+code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
+pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
+instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
+space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
+If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
+a label is unreachable.
+
 @node Alternate Keywords
 @section Alternate Keywords
 @cindex alternate keywords

Re: [PATCH, doc]: Fix a bunch of warnings in *.texi files

[Uros Bizjak]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 7:17 AM, David Wohlferd <dw@limegreensocks.com> wrote:
> My bad.  My version of makeinfo wasn't reporting these errors.
>
> However, this isn't right either.  There are two subsections that are now
> under "Size of an asm" that should be under "Variables in Specified
> Registers."  How about this (attached)?

Oh, I was not aware that this is a nested @menu with its own sections.

Sure, your patch is OK. I went ahead and installed it on mainline,
after I have bootstrapped it on x86_64-linux-gnu.

Thanks,
Uros.