On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 16:54 +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi David, > > On 08/11/15 13:55, David Malcolm wrote: > > I've been experimenting with using Sphinx [1] for GCC's documentation. > > > > You can see an HTML sample of GCC docs built with Sphinx here: > > https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2015-08-31/rst-experiment/gcc.html > > (it's a work-in-progress; i.e. there are bugs). > > > > Compare with: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/index.html > > > > > > In particular, note how options get stable, clickable URLs: > > https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2015-08-31/rst-experiment/option-summary.html > > FWIW, I think this all looks much better than the existing formatting. > One weird artifact I noticed while looking at the ARM options: > https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2015-08-31/rst-experiment/hardware-models-and-configurations.html#arm-options > In particular for -mcpu where it gives an explanation of what > -mcpu=generic-<arch> is equivalent to, there seems > to be something weird going on. > The .texi source is: > @option{-mcpu=generic-@var{arch}} is also permissible, and is equivalent to > @option{-march=@var{arch} -mtune=generic-@var{arch}}. > > Whereas the output looks something like: > -mcpu=generic-``arch`` is also permissible, and is equivalent to > -march=``arch` -mtune=generic-arch` > > The backticks look somewhat inconsistent. But that may be due to invalid use > of the @var and @option > constructs in the source. I'm not very familiar with the details.
Thanks; I've filed this for myself as: https://github.com/davidmalcolm/texi2rst/issues/10 [...snip...]
