On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:20 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 5:09 PM Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > > > On 3/8/23 14:22, Arsen Arsenović wrote: > > > > > > Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> writes: > > > > > >> On 3/8/23 02:11, Arsen Arsenović wrote: > > >>> Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> writes: > > >>> > > >>>> On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović 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 GCC > > >>>>> 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 > > >>>> unreleased 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 set > > >>>> 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 version > > >>> 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 degrade > > >>> 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 incorrect > > >> 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#index-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 for > > > an example of those), both of which were often named as annoyances with > > > 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 missed > > > something when refactoring @defbuiltin and removing @gols (which I do > > > believe are superfluous with current versions of texinfo.tex, which is > > > why I bumped that too). > > > > I did a few spot-checks here and there of those changes. I saw a couple > > of line break problems but they turn out to be due to existing errors in > > 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 list of > > >> dependencies and normally update to the latest stable versions only once > > >> every > > >> few years unless there is a hard requirement to upgrade some particular > > >> 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 > > >> intended 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 hard > > > 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 Texinfo > > >> 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 unintentional > > >> 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 for > > >> "makeinfo 4.7 brokenness" in doc/install.texi2html that need to be > > >> changed, 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 its > > > 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 for > > 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
