RE: cross toolchain vs. info files

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Dave Korn writes:
 > Doug Evans wrote:
 > > Dave Korn writes:
 > >  >   Because they may all be very different versions, with different
 > >  command-line > options.  (This applies to Gcc as well, which has more
 > >  option-churn than > binutils, but the point is valid for both).  It is
 > > not the same document. 
 > > 
 > > I don't recall GCC ever controlling what target-specific parts of the
 > > info docs to generate/install.  Maybe that's changed.
 > 
 >   Um, you don't appear to have understood much of what I've written.  That
 > stuff about target-specific parts was later on in the post and wasn't anything
 > to do with gcc, and I wasn't referring to it there.

Perhaps, but it cuts both ways.  Email isn't always the best medium.
But rather than get worked up over it why not clear up the misundertanding
and carry on?

 > Then you go on to say how
 > you were afraid you'd be misunderstood, then you go on to quote the bit that
 > makes it plain I did understand you.

+ Earlier I wrote:
+ > > what I'm refering to is, 
+ > > of course, whether the docs get something extra or different iff that
+ > > particular target is configured.]
+ 
+ And Dave replied:
+ >  Yes, absolutely they do.  Check out all the "@ifset <CPUNAME>" directives in
+ > as.texinfo.

"Yes, absolutely they do."  IOW, if I take a particular binutils release
and configure it for two different targets and then compare the installed
info pages I will see a difference?

Yes, all the @ifset <CPUNAME>'s are there.
And I'm not claiming that there can never be a difference.
However, I don't see a difference in practice.
Note that binutils (and other) releases come with *.info* premade so if there ever is
a difference it'd have to be via --enable-maintainer-mode or some other
special option or private patch.  I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong though.

So, to repeat myself for clarity, while yes we could prepend $target-
to doc/info pages, I still claim that for any particular release every target
will have the same copy.

 > You keep on asking questions that
 > suggest you have no information on this subject and at that point I kind of
 > lost interest and stopped reading.

I sometimes phrase things as questions because to me it's a politer way of
disagreeing with someone rather than the usual curt replies one often sees.

As for why man pages have it and info pages don't, I vaguely recall
a discussion at Cygnus (hey, it was awhile ago) that people are more
likely to do "man <program>" and expect to be able to type the precise
program name that they specify on the command line than they are to expect
"info <program>" to require the precise program name.
And given that info files are much bigger and that Cygnus built trees
with 4-6(?) hosts and 10-20(?) targets saving some space was something
that was a consideration.  Info pages are more like books in that sense -
one is loathe to require a different book for each target of gcc
given that each book is identical except for the title.  At least that's
my recollection of discussions in this area from way back when.

btw#2, if folks want to add the $target- prefix that's fine with me (fwiw obviously).
It seems excessive but maybe that's just familiarity with the current way.

 >   I'm not finding this exchange productive.  I think we'd better just drop it.

oh well.