Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

[Tobias Burnus]

Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown
in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release.

I think it makes sense to bump the version + date of the two files for the release,
alongside the other version bumps done for the release. Namely, I think it should have
been part of the commit:
   commit 9e09d6ed83cce4777a5950412647ccc603040409 (tag: newlib-4.3.0)
   Bump up newlib to 4.3.0

Currently, there is the following (I think the first one is okayish
as it does not refer to the newlib version):

libgloss/doc/porting.texi
   @subtitle Spring 1995

newlib/libc/libc.texi
   @subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0
   @subtitle December 2016

newlib/libm/libm.texi
   @subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0
   @subtitle December 2016

The last textual change to libc was mid 2021, the last janitorial/re-org changes were
at the end of last year. Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more
consistent than not updating it at all.

Thoughts?

Tobias

PS: Namely, something like the following. (Ignoring (C) lines etc.)

--- a/newlib/libc/libc.texi
+++ b/newlib/libc/libc.texi
@@ -72,2 +72,2 @@ into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
-@subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0
-@subtitle December 2016
+@subtitle @code{libc} 4.3.0
+@subtitle January 2023

--- a/newlib/libm/libm.texi
+++ b/newlib/libm/libm.texi
@@ -49,2 +49,2 @@ into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
-@subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0
-@subtitle December 2016
+@subtitle @code{libm} 4.3.0
+@subtitle January 2023

-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955

Re: Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mar 30 09:28, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown
> in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release.
> 
> I think it makes sense to bump the version + date of the two files for the release,
> alongside the other version bumps done for the release. Namely, I think it should have
> been part of the commit:
>   commit 9e09d6ed83cce4777a5950412647ccc603040409 (tag: newlib-4.3.0)
>   Bump up newlib to 4.3.0
> 
> Currently, there is the following (I think the first one is okayish
> as it does not refer to the newlib version):
> 
> libgloss/doc/porting.texi
>   @subtitle Spring 1995
> 
> newlib/libc/libc.texi
>   @subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0
>   @subtitle December 2016
> 
> newlib/libm/libm.texi
>   @subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0
>   @subtitle December 2016
> 
> The last textual change to libc was mid 2021, the last janitorial/re-org changes were
> at the end of last year. Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more
> consistent than not updating it at all.
> 
> Thoughts?

Sounds good.  Please send a patch in git format-patch style.


Thanks,
Corinna

Re: Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

[Tobias Burnus]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On 30.03.23 11:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 30 09:28, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown
>> in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release.
>> ...
>> ... Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more
>> consistent than not updating it at all.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> Sounds good.  Please send a patch in git format-patch style.

Done now.

Thanks,

Tobias
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Bump-newlib-version-in-the-manual-to-4.3.0.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1487 bytes --]

From 78aa011af1d1ce18b3a60056d39dcf331f4fe625 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:09:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Bump newlib version in the manual to 4.3.0

While commit 9e09d6ed8 (tag: newlib-4.3.0) bumped the newlib version to 4.3.0,
this commit updates the version/date in the libc/libm manuals to match.
---
 newlib/libc/libc.texi | 4 ++--
 newlib/libm/libm.texi | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/newlib/libc/libc.texi b/newlib/libc/libc.texi
index 72328e148..acb6afb5b 100644
--- a/newlib/libc/libc.texi
+++ b/newlib/libc/libc.texi
@@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
 @title The Red Hat newlib C Library
 @subtitle Full Configuration
 @sp 1
-@subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0
-@subtitle December 2016
+@subtitle @code{libc} 4.3.0
+@subtitle January 2023
 @author {Steve Chamberlain}
 @author {Roland Pesch}
 @author {Red Hat Support}
diff --git a/newlib/libm/libm.texi b/newlib/libm/libm.texi
index 779615d32..d3ca9ae3c 100644
--- a/newlib/libm/libm.texi
+++ b/newlib/libm/libm.texi
@@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
 @titlepage
 @title The Red Hat newlib C Math Library
 @sp 1
-@subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0
-@subtitle December 2016
+@subtitle @code{libm} 4.3.0
+@subtitle January 2023
 @author {Steve Chamberlain}
 @author {Roland Pesch}
 @author {Red Hat Support}
-- 
2.34.1

Re: Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mar 30 11:16, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 30.03.23 11:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Mar 30 09:28, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > > Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown
> > > in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release.
> > > ...
> > > ... Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more
> > > consistent than not updating it at all.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > Sounds good.  Please send a patch in git format-patch style.
> 
> Done now.

Pushed, thanks!

It would be nice if we could automate this...


Corinna

Re: Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date

[Brian Inglis]

On 2023-03-30 06:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 30 11:16, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> On 30.03.23 11:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Mar 30 09:28, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>>> Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown
>>>> in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release.
>>>> ...
>>>> ... Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more
>>>> consistent than not updating it at all.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> Sounds good.  Please send a patch in git format-patch style.
>>
>> Done now.
> 
> Pushed, thanks!
> 
> It would be nice if we could automate this...

How about - there are 2 real \n in the sed commands:

$ grep '@subtitle' lib[cm]/lib[cm].texi
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle Full Configuration
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle December 2016
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle December 2016
$ sed_fmt='/^\(@subtitle\s\).*20[0-9][0-9].*$/s!!\1%(creatordate:format:%F)!
/^\(@subtitle\s@code{lib[cm]}\s\)[1-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+$/s!!\1%(refname:short)!
/^\(@subtitle\s@code{lib[cm]}\s\)newlib-\([1-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+\)$/s!!\1\2!'
$ git tag -l --format="$sed_fmt" 'newlib-[1-9][-_.].[0-9][-_.][0-9]' \
	| tail -n3 | sed -f - -i lib[cm]/lib[cm].texi
$ grep '@subtitle' lib[cm]/lib[cm].texi              libc/libc.texi:@subtitle 
Full Configuration
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle @code{libc} 4.3.0
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle 2023-01-20
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle @code{libm} 4.3.0
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle 2023-01-20
$ sed_fmt='/^\(@subtitle\s\).*20[0-9][0-9].*$/s!!\1%(creatordate:format:%B %Y)!
/^\(@subtitle\s@code{lib[cm]}\s\)[1-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+$/s!!\1%(refname:short)!
/^\(@subtitle\s@code{lib[cm]}\s\)newlib-\([1-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+\)$/s!!\1\2!'
$ git tag -l --format="$sed_fmt" 'newlib-[1-9][-_.][0-9][-_.][0-9]' \
	| tail -n3 | sed -f - -i lib[cm]/lib[cm].texi
$ grep '@subtitle' lib[cm]/lib[cm].texi              libc/libc.texi:@subtitle 
Full Configuration
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle @code{libc} 4.3.0
libc/libc.texi:@subtitle January 2023
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle @code{libm} 4.3.0
libm/libm.texi:@subtitle January 2023

Where to put it: git hook reference-transaction("committed") with stdin matching
'ZEROID REFOID refs/tags/newlib-[1-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+[-_.][0-9]\+', part of some 
release process, or in a script?

Elsewhere like assuming git in doc/Makefile.inc, or hook for commit of 
newlib/acinclude.m4 with any line matching '^AC_DEFUN([DEF_NEWLIB_.*_VERSION]' 
where value ',[.*]))$' changes would seem to be more problematic.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry