From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0396E3858CDB for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 08:27:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0396E3858CDB 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-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id by8so1002809ljb.7 for ; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 00:27:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678350421; 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=4e+aMxdpqccijStP8rVFRXUcs1AqnEG+JdJ0eg/znqU=; b=cHTSvNmgNBjrHxM5FBNxhBYGbvDPteXckyd1d+c/o8c578uWRrI2kphkQfwJ4BePZb Ezf/tv/fevgPjyvfLW9Qia1kl75fiHsb7uIzmCl1dN4M0gdR+w/xynM6LtYEJP3cBVKF 8kr4KVjApmfeOQyksCEtk3uUceNi7RoeciwdUyj3KXP4EJN56iUGn9iI7yHAiEwa15F+ TKlJm0Za3Gfw8Z9za2V2aLyfsAyFlsoZ4yh4JYPMP3rmd2a1OdSEYFrxMqp9+2jgp8im lvZehddvVG1lprbEJlHMbjdXytjI2rGM9czPcFmMtEdIbpdnmXPBMIGMMWANB3IG3Mj5 1o3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678350421; 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=4e+aMxdpqccijStP8rVFRXUcs1AqnEG+JdJ0eg/znqU=; b=umVTBqdVCYed9m1iQXexFvlMVqZ0+kL1/RCdPcfjE0rORezqMXUjWaoTS2wnDi5khk VwCdfHrCFdJ/uaKDXCyoKIwLV8VyB80YASr4SNyQQUHaYtNiO71fD+fdxG/8ryFvk/3g d4xeDQ65h8wP/dyRjAxWrlu9CW90YhBXymnldTsCTSBA1s3LEpRvA3762o6bz2ZLw4BB tJmtu7z+aysuC+cuiZy8VYY3ookhiac612Pp9xA+eCMSJppKGvYGWHoNsPaT9Ij7/J/t nG9JN4kk/DAmICnf6w9GB7sMi0NjYaKIJ8dpdbI/RzRukSKC0sNgdj/dilN75a52RmsE JeIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUu7fXpbbvbJckaNdNi/VhVQOPLj/yHwmK8fBQY+gcYp29hyRdZ 0ElOUWnoAgPBAIp+4GoTH6G/P0nO7l9PyrV/T6c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+kGzRrRNFHb7/jP4ko8TRD+qsYYGPMtlhe1zSFdQIJppw0lbTLg2PF+FU2zp22aJT+FRLNU244yetmFQHVcMI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e3a:0:b0:293:5fb9:3c10 with SMTP id r26-20020a2e8e3a000000b002935fb93c10mr6474937ljk.10.1678350421357; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 00:27:01 -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: From: Richard Biener Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:26:47 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A small Texinfo refinement To: Andrew Pinski Cc: Sandra Loosemore , =?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=-1.0 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 Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:20=E2=80=AFAM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: > > 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 GC= C > > >>>>> 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 unrel= eased 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 s= et that 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 vers= ion > > >>> 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 degr= ade > > >>> 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 incorr= ect 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#in= dex-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 fo= r > > > an example of those), both of which were often named as annoyances wi= th > > > 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. > > > > 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 mis= sed > > > something when refactoring @defbuiltin and removing @gols (which I do > > > believe are superfluous with current versions of texinfo.tex, which i= s > > > why I bumped that too). > > > > I did a few spot-checks here and there of those changes. I saw a coupl= e > > of line break problems but they turn out to be due to existing errors i= n > > 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= need > > >> reproducible builds for long-term support so we maintain our own lis= t of > > >> dependencies and normally update to the latest stable versions only = once every > > >> few years unless there is a hard requirement to upgrade some particu= lar tool > > >> 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 int= ended 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 h= ard > > > 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 Tex= info > > >> 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 unintentiona= l > > >> 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 f= or > > >> "makeinfo 4.7 brokenness" in doc/install.texi2html that need to be c= hanged, 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 it= s > > > 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. SLES 12 has texinfo 4.13a, SLES 15 has texinfo 6.5. We still provide up-to-date GCC for SLES 12 but we can probably manage in some ways when the texinfo requirement gets bumped. Richard. > 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 fo= r > > 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