[Bug binutils/4791] New: etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
Received these two warnings during 'make info' of the latest cvs version:
../../src/etc/standards.texi:1743: warning: @strong{Note...} produces a
spurious cross-reference in Info; reword to avoid that.
../../src/etc/standards.texi:1858: warning: @strong{Note...} produces a
spurious cross-reference in Info; reword to avoid that.
The phrase "Note" is set with strong emphasis in such a way as to tag it as a
cross-reference. This should not occur. The following patch cleans up the
text of both entries and makes their formatting identical:
Index: standards.texi
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/etc/standards.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 standards.texi
--- standards.texi 27 Feb 2006 16:26:23 - 1.3
+++ standards.texi 15 Jul 2007 03:14:53 -
@@ -1740,7 +1740,7 @@ Specify an HTTP proxy.
@samp{-q} in Make.
@item quiet
-Used in many programs to inhibit the usual output. @strong{Note:} every
+Used in many programs to inhibit the usual output. Note that every
program accepting @samp{--quiet} should accept @samp{--silent} as a
synonym.
@@ -1854,9 +1854,9 @@ Used by @code{recode} to chose files or
@samp{-T} in @code{cat}.
@item silent
-Used in many programs to inhibit the usual output.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:} every program accepting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] should accept @samp{--quiet} as a synonym.
+Used in many programs to inhibit the usual output. Note that every
+program accepting @samp{--silent} should accept @samp{--quiet} as
+a synonym.
@item size
@samp{-s} in @code{ls}.
--
Summary: etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious
cross-reference in Info
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: binutils
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org,nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
-- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-08-01 16:03 --- Can someone look at this patch that I supplied? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-08-01 16:05 --- Created an attachment (id=1939) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1939&action=view) Proposed patch to change two lines in standards.texi I supplied this patch in my first comment, and am now providing it as an attachment. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-08-01 23:10
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re: etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...}
> produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
>
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 16:05 +, nightstrike at gmail dot com wrote:
> > Proposed patch to change two lines in standards.texi
>
> standards.texi is not a binutils file, it is an FSF documentation file.
> It is wrong to change the wording of it without approval from the FSF.
> A better solution is to import a new version from upstream, which
> hopefully already has this fixed. If not, then we should be reporting
> the bug upstream so they can fix it, and so we can then import a fixed
> version.
I didn't realize there was the hierarchy you describe. Where is the cvs
repository for the "upstream"?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-08-04 02:55 --- I have reviewed the current version of the standards.texi file. Should this bug report be the one that requests updating to the latest version of "gnustandards", or is that in the project plan for binutils somewhere? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/4791] Update to latest gnustandards (Was: etc/standards.texi: @strong{Note...} produces a spurious cross-reference in Info)
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-08-06 17:38
---
I changed the title to reflect that. What else must be done to upgrade to the
latest version?
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|etc/standards.texi: |Update to latest
|@strong{Note...} produces a |gnustandards (Was:
|spurious cross-reference in |etc/standards.texi:
|Info|@strong{Note...} produces a
||spurious cross-reference in
||Info)
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4791
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/5944] New: Cross compiling testsuite needs improvement for mingw targets
Currently, testing the cross compiler does not work "out of the box". Most of this was found due to testing the x86_64-pc-mingw32 compiler, which is not part of "winsup/w32api". There are several issues that Kai and I have found that would make this much more robust. First is the ability for the windres tests to find the target system headers. The --with-sysroot option that configure accepts is not used, and instead the path is hardcoded in windres.exp to "$(srcdir)/../../winsup/w32api/include". What would make this more complete would be to have make set $sysroot in site.exp, and then for windres.exp to use $sysroot/mingw/include or some other (perhaps more) appropriate path relative to sysroot, like $sysroot/$target/include, etc. Second, windres uses the build system compiler (gcc). This is ok, I suppose, since the cross compiler may not be yet built. However, this means that for the mingw targets, _WIN32 and WIN32 will not be guaranteed to be defined. This requires that windres also accept the options "-DWIN32 -D_WIN32". These two changes could be done alongside the current method of doing things, and the hack that hard codes in $src/../../winsup/" doesn't have to be necessairily removed. However, adding this support would make things a heckuva lot easier for targets like x86_64-pc-mingw32. -- Summary: Cross compiling testsuite needs improvement for mingw targets Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC target triplet: *-*-mingw* http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gprofng/29476] New: gprofng.texi makeinfo build failure on centos 7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29476 Bug ID: 29476 Summary: gprofng.texi makeinfo build failure on centos 7 Product: binutils Version: 2.39 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gprofng Assignee: vladimir.mezentsev at oracle dot com Reporter: nightstrike at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- When configuring the top level binutils 2.39 package with "--prefix=/some/path --disable-nls", gprofng fails to build with the following on a stock Centos 7.5 system: ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1526: warning: unreferenced node `Creating a Multithreading Experiment' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1526: warning: node `Commands Specific to Multithreading' is next for `Creating a Multithreading Experiment' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1526: warning: node `Support for Multithreading' is up for `Creating a Multithreading Experiment' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1513: node `Support for Multithreading' lacks menu item for `Creating a Multithreading Experiment' despite being its Up target ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1580: warning: unreferenced node `Commands Specific to Multithreading' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1580: warning: node `Creating a Multithreading Experiment' is prev for `Commands Specific to Multithreading' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1580: warning: node `Support for Multithreading' is up for `Commands Specific to Multithreading' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1513: node `Support for Multithreading' lacks menu item for `Commands Specific to Multithreading' despite being its Up target ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1929: warning: unreferenced node `Aggregation of Experiments' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1929: warning: node `Comparison of Experiments' is next for `Aggregation of Experiments' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1929: warning: node `Viewing Multiple Experiments' is up for `Aggregation of Experiments' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1917: node `Viewing Multiple Experiments' lacks menu item for `Aggregation of Experiments' despite being its Up target ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2008: warning: unreferenced node `Comparison of Experiments' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2008: warning: node `Aggregation of Experiments' is prev for `Comparison of Experiments' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2008: warning: node `Viewing Multiple Experiments' is up for `Comparison of Experiments' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:1917: node `Viewing Multiple Experiments' lacks menu item for `Comparison of Experiments' despite being its Up target ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2159: warning: unreferenced node `Getting Information on the Counters Supported' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2159: warning: node `Examples Using Hardware Event Counters' is next for `Getting Information on the Counters Supported' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2159: warning: node `Profile Hardware Event Counters' is up for `Getting Information on the Counters Supported' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2145: node `Profile Hardware Event Counters' lacks menu item for `Getting Information on the Counters Supported' despite being its Up target ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2383: warning: unreferenced node `Examples Using Hardware Event Counters' ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2383: warning: node `Getting Information on the Counters Supported' is prev for `Examples Using Hardware Event Counters' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2383: warning: node `Profile Hardware Event Counters' is up for `Examples Using Hardware Event Counters' in sectioning but not in menu ../../../gprofng/doc/gprofng.texi:2145: node `Profile Hardware Event Counters' lacks menu item for `Examples Using Hardware Event Counters' despite being its Up target make[5]: *** [gprofng.info] Error 1 $ rpm -q texinfo texinfo-5.1-5.el7.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/29476] gprofng.texi makeinfo build failure on centos 7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29476 --- Comment #1 from nightstrike --- It looks like gprofng's configure tries to check the version of makeinfo and disable building documentation if it's too old, but that doesn't actually work. If you run make in the gprofng subdir, it will work somewhat correctly (although /bin/sh will complain that "@echo" isn't found due to a somewhat sketchy value of $(MAKEINFO), but running make from top level does not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/29476] gprofng.texi makeinfo build failure on centos 7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29476 --- Comment #3 from nightstrike --- (In reply to Vladimir Mezentsev from comment #2) > We need makeinfo 6.5 or newer. Yup. I pointed to this in the first post, that the method used to exclude the use of earlier versions doesn't work. > What is an output of `makeinfo --version` on your machine ? I showed this in the first post as the output of rpm -q, but here it is: $ makeinfo --version makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] New: bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 Bug ID: 30479 Summary: bfd.info build failure on centos 8 Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: nightstrike at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29476 for related problems. The 2.40 tar release requires makeinfo as well. So while gprof was fixed, bfd is still a problem. I am assuming that building the documentation for a release tar is not supposed to be required. In this case, I am trying it on a system that doesn't have makeinfo installed at all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 --- Comment #1 from nightstrike --- It looks like adding texinfo to top level to be built automatically (like isl, gmp, mpfr, mpc, dejagnu, and a bunch of other stuff) doesn't work OOTB, because the binutils tarball include a texinfo directory containing a texinfo.tex file. That invalidates all of the top level configure rules, such as "maybe-configure-texinfo", etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 --- Comment #2 from nightstrike --- Renaming the included texinfo directory to test configure's ability to build texinfo shows that that doesn't even work anymore: /bin/sh: line 7: /tmp/src/binutils-2.40/_/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo: No such file or directory /bin/sh: line 7: /tmp/src/binutils-2.40/_/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo: No such file or directory make[5]: *** [Makefile:1564: texinfo.info] Error 127 The build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu dir is never created, let alone anything else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30481] New: bfd version inconsistencies
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30481 Bug ID: 30481 Summary: bfd version inconsistencies Product: binutils Version: 2.40 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: nightstrike at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following warnings are emitted during the build, many times each: In file included from ../../gprof/../bfd/sysdep.h:29, from ../../gprof/gprof.h:33: ../bfd/config.h:327: note: this is the location of the previous definition 327 | #define VERSION "2.40" | In file included from ../../gprof/gprof.h:41, from ../../gprof/corefile.c:22: ./gconfig.h:104: warning: "VERSION" redefined 104 | #define VERSION "2.40.00" | There is an inconsistency in naming convention regarding 2.40 and 2.40.00. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 nightstrike changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |2.40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 --- Comment #3 from nightstrike --- Ok, I worked around it for now by touching bfd/doc/bfd.info and gas/doc/as.info (which also exhibited the problem) in the source dir. I had to do this individually, and before each rebuild. I think the build system can be improved here, though. And certainly, texinfo should be buildable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 --- Comment #4 from nightstrike --- Looks like this is still a problem with the 2.42 release, at least on an ubuntu system without makeinfo installed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/30479] bfd.info build failure on centos 8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479 --- Comment #5 from nightstrike --- (In reply to nightstrike from comment #3) > Ok, I worked around it for now by touching bfd/doc/bfd.info and > gas/doc/as.info (which also exhibited the problem) in the source dir. I had > to do this individually, and before each rebuild. I think the build system > can be improved here, though. And certainly, texinfo should be buildable. This workaround no longer works, as texi files are created in the build dir that cause the bfd.info rule to be out of date. It depends on doc/bfd.text in the source dir, which is fine, but it also depends on doc/*.texi that are picked up in the build dir, which is not fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/31659] Fix Windows DEF file documentation
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31659 nightstrike changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from nightstrike --- (In reply to Pali Rohár from comment #1) > Interesting... bugzilla added hyperlink to PR keyword, I thought it is > reference to some pull request. "Problem Report" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/6502] New: image-base and enable-auto-image_base restricted to 32 bits
ld supports the --image-base and associated options to control DLL addresses.
They are represented as type 'long', however, which is 32bits on both 32-bit
and 64-bit versions of Windows. On 64-bit versions of Windows, long is still
32 bits while pointers are 64 bits. A more appropriate type should be used
that is cross platform between the two.
Without this change, dll's cannot be based appropriately. binutils 2.18
supports 64-bit windows, so this affects 2.18 and 2.19(HEAD).
--
Summary: image-base and enable-auto-image_base restricted to 32
bits
Product: binutils
Version: 2.18
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6502
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6502] image-base and enable-auto-image_base restricted to 32 bits
-- What|Removed |Added CC||Kai dot Tietz at onevision ||dot com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6502 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug admin/6526] New: Building for interix 3.5 requires _ALL_SOURCE defined
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01300.html Based on the aforementioned email, configure needs to be updated to somehow define _ALL_SOURCES for compiling for interix 3.5. Without this, things like strcasecmp from strings.h won't get defined, and will prevent bfd from compiling. This represents a broken bootstrap for that platform. -- Summary: Building for interix 3.5 requires _ALL_SOURCE defined Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: admin AssignedTo: drow at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC build triplet: i586-pc-interix GCC host triplet: i586-pc-interix GCC target triplet: i586-pc-interix http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6526 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6526] Building for interix 3.5 requires _ALL_SOURCE defined
--- Additional Comments From nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-16 21:52 --- I'm not sure. Maybe Ralf knows? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6526 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
