Looking at the end of PR10996 [Take 2 for the *.7 files]

Joseph S. Myers jsm@polyomino.org.uk
Wed Oct 22 19:04:00 GMT 2003


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Kelley Cook wrote:

> The current generic rule works great with Java's gcj.info, but not so 
> great for g77.info since it is built from multiple .texi in the f/ 
> directory.  Unless, of course, it is decided that it would be prudent to 
> move the 18 .texi files in the ada, f, java and treelang directories to 
> the doc directory.  One point in favor of this is that objc.texi is 
> already located there.

objc.texi is *not* the manual for the Objective-C compiler; it's a little
information about the library (similar to the C and C++ information in
extend.texi) that was put in the main manual since a single manual already
covered C/C++/Objective-C and having a manual for one chapter was silly.

That the Objective-C and C++ compilers are covered in the main manual
rather than their own is largely historical (though you could also argue
from the amount of C material that also relates to those languages).  
Objective-C also has had its own peculiarities, e.g. not having its own
separate driver program like g++, g77.

Some file names are duplicated in multiple directories, e.g. invoke.texi.  
The manual build works fine with this.  So does update_web_docs.

In general we want to be able to drop new front end directories in without
needing any changes to core code, i.e., manuals in front end directories
should be the usual case.  The testsuite rules being centralised is the
only present bug in this scheme (and one that ought to be fixed); all the
documented places outside a front end directory to change when adding that
directory don't actually need to be changed for the new front end to work.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list