This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documentation generation patch [Take 2]
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: Documentation generation patch [Take 2]
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:45:35 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Stan Shebs wrote:
> The easy way to cheat on this is just to lift everything from gdb/doc,
> which has been using a separate subdir for years. It has all the
> different targets etc. There are some anachronisms because of its
> age, so best to review specific bits before pulling them over. I'm
> pretty familiar with it, so can help if people want.
I'd rather, for GCC, for the doc directory to provide a Make-lang.in
equivalent - that is, a makefile fragment that goes in a single Makefile
that runs from the directory above. (Note that languages other than Chill
have got rid of their Makefile.in files and only use Make-lang.in.)
We should for GCC presume Texinfo 4.0 or greater (already required for
info generation, and the info files should be included in release
tarballs). We should also preferably use texi2dvi in place of manual
texindex etc. if possible, use its -I option to find sources, and so on.
The obscure scripts that install info files if present - and are slightly
different every place they occur - really need to move out to a separate
shell script from the Makefiles, as per Zack's proposals for cleaner
installation.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk