Re: [PATCH] gdb/doc: use silent-rules.mk in the Makefile

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
>> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:00:23 +0100
>> 
>> Make use of silent-rules.mk when building the GDB docs.
>> 
>> Most of these are pretty straight forward, adding ECHO_GEN and then
>> lots of SILENCE prefixes.
>> 
>> I added a new SILENT_QUIET_FLAG to silent-rules.mk, this is like
>> SILENT_FLAG, but is set to '-q' when in silent mode, this can be used
>> with the 'dvips' and 'texi2dvi' commands, both of which use '-q' to
>> mean: only report errors.
>> 
>> As with the rest of the GDB makefiles, I've only converted the
>> "generation" rules to use silent-rules.mk, the install / uninstall
>> rules are left unchanged.
>> 
>> There are still a few "generation" targets that produce output, there
>> seems to be no flag to silence the 'tex' and 'pdftex' commands which
>> some recipes use, I've not worried about these for now, e.g. the
>> refcard.dvi and refcard.pdf targets still produce some output.
>> 
>> Luckily, when doing a 'make all' in the gdb/ directory, we only build
>> the info docs by default, and those rules are now nice and silent, so
>> a complete GDB build is now looking nice and quiet by default.
>> ---
>>  gdb/doc/Makefile.in | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>  gdb/silent-rules.mk |   1 +
>>  2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
>
> Doesn't this silence too much?  Can you should the output of each rule
> after the changes?

Yes you can.  As with the rest of GDB, if you do:

  make all-gdb V=1

or

  make -C gdb/doc all-doc V=1

then you'll get everything back, just as it was before.

For the commands that now get '-q' passed to them, the manual pages
claim that errors will still be printed.  So if something goes wrong you
should still see the output required to fix the problem (without having
to pass V=1).

Some commands, like 'tex' and 'pdftex' don't have a -q option.  In these
cases I've not tried to silence the command as I assume any errors will
arrive on stdout mixed in with the general noise.

Thanks,
Andrew