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

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:

> On 4/15/24 9:55 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>> So my preference would be for having the above emit something like the
>>> below instead
>>>
>>>   TEXI2POD gdb.pod
>>>   POD2MAN1 gdb.1
>> 
>> That one's harder.  The target information comes from make's $@
>> variable, so it's easy enough to do:
>> 
>>   TEXI2POD gdb.1
>>   POD2MAN  gdb.1
>> 
>> which isn't exactly what you asked for.
>
> Could you split the rule in two?  One rule generating gdb.pod and one
> rule generating gdb.1.
>
> I personally think the original output from Andrew's patch is fine.  In
> the silent mode, all I need to know is that make is currently working on
> getting gdb.1 generated.  The intermediary gdb.pod file is an
> implementation detail of the rule.  If I want to see it, then I'll use
> `make V=1`.

I agree.

> But if it makes everyone happy, I don't mind if we split the rule in
> two.  Smaller and simpler rules are easier to understand.

I didn't really want to split the rule as the .pod really is an
intermediate step:

	$(SILENCE) touch $@
	-$(ECHO_TEXI2POD) $(TEXI2POD) $(MANCONF) -Dgdb < $(srcdir)/gdb.texinfo > gdb.pod
	-$(ECHO_TEXI2MAN) ($(POD2MAN1) gdb.pod | sed -e '/^.if n .na/d' > $@.T$$$$ && \
		mv -f $@.T$$$$ $@) || (rm -f $@.T$$$$ && exit 1)
	$(SILENCE) rm -f gdb.pod

We create the .pod and then consume it, before finally deleting it.

If the rule was split then we'd end up creating the .pod in one rule
before deleting it in another, which didn't seem great.  But if you're
happy with that change then I can split the rule.

Thanks,
Andrew