This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: documentation of trees vs RTL [Take 2]

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

> Well, this pollutes the build directory with tons of tex generated
> files and the problem will have to be solved anyhow when everything

I don't actually see such pollution as a problem; once you've moved out
the printable manuals you want to keep and installed the compiler, the
build directory will normally just get deleted anyway.

> I have a clean solution for doing the subdir build anyway:
> java/gcj.dvi: $(srcdir)/java/gcj.texi $(srcdir)/fdl.texi
> 	s=`cd $(srcdir); pwd`; export s; \
> 	cd java && $(TEXI2DVI) -I $$s $$s/java/gcj.texi
> Is this acceptable (again the same trick will be needed to build
> everything in the doc subdir). Should I move (or copy) the result
> back into the gcc dir.

I don't see a problem with this method.  Just get some version of the
patch done that makes this reasonably clean and consistent, get that into
the tree, then we can always change exactly where these files get built

> The problem with enable-languages is that it is not really documented.

doc/install.texi clearly says to use "grep language= */" to
identify the language values that can be used.

> So two questions remain:
> 	- Is it OK to build the documentation in the subdir with the
>           above scheme.
> 	- Should I move/copy back the result into $objdir.

I don't see any need for moving/copying once the files have been built.
Just produce a patch that makes this consistent.  Building in the subdir
should be fine.

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]