RE: Documentation Error in Using the GNU Compiler Collection 4.2.1 & 4.3.0

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 05 November 2007 16:29, Craig Dedo wrote:

> 	Today I found an error in versions 4.2.1 and 4.3.0 of ?Using the GNU
> Compiler Collection?.  Both versions have the same error.
> 
>       The error is at the very end of section 3.2 and is on page 21 of
> version 4.2.1 and page 25 of version 4.3.0.  The error concerns what
> apparently is supposed to be the description of the @file option.  Based on
> my knowledge of other compilers, it appears that the @file option is
> supposed to name a file that contains a list of compiler options.  Instead
> of such a discussion, there are 16 lines of what is apparently LaTeX source
> code.  

  Thanks for the report, but I think the problem isn't in the gcc
documentation source itself.  I think someone must have gone wrong during the
build and install process of whatever gcc package you were looking at.  The
error is not visible in the online documentation at the gcc website that is
autogenerated from source code: both for 4.2 series:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Overall-Options.html#Overall-Optio
ns

and for the latest (4.3) sources:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Overall-Options.html#Overall-Options


  Nor could I see it in the info files from my own installation, which I built
from source code a little while ago.

>       Please fix this error as soon as possible and replace it with the
> proper text.

  It seems that the bug only exists in your local copy.  Precisely which form
of the file were you looking at, and where did you get it from?  Was it part
of a Linux distribution?  If so, you'd need to report it to the distro
supplier.

>       Also, when you fix this error, please include a complete description
> of how the @file option is supposed to work.  What is the proper structure
> of such a file?  Can it include comments?  If so, how are those comments
> delimited?

  Check the description at those links I pointed you to, I hope you'll find it
adequate.  If not, we can easily extend it.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....