[PATCH] gas: improve --gsframe documentation

[Jan Beulich]

On 16.07.2025 08:58, Sam James wrote:
> Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:
> 
>> On 16.07.2025 08:02, Sam James wrote:
>>> I omitted documentation in 8aad677a12832885acd5be1de8f41e740b8e713d in
>>> error. Rectify that with:
>>> 1) changing ---help to mention bare `--gsframe` too, as we're not
>>>    getting rid of that;
>>>
>>> 2) dropping the 'default: no' text, as it's not useful as-is now we have
>>>    `--gsframe` explicitly documented again. It can be restored as-needed
>>>    later once we have a configure flag for determining the default;
>>>
>>> 3) adding the new --gsframe=[no|yes] form to as.texi.
>>>
>>> 	* gas/as.c: Tweak --gsframe= help text.
>>> 	* gas/doc/as.texi: Document --gsframe=[no|yes].
>>> ---
>>> Jan, does this look better? Notably, I've dropped the 'default: ...' text,
>>> as I think it's noise for now. I should've really clocked that its inclusion
>>> was really hinting that --gsframe itself should remain listed.
>>
>> I'm fine with the as.texi change, but ...
>>
>>> --- a/gas/as.c
>>> +++ b/gas/as.c
>>> @@ -311,8 +311,8 @@ Options:\n\
>>>    fprintf (stream, _("\
>>>                            generate GNU Build notes if none are present in the input\n"));
>>>    fprintf (stream, _("\
>>> -  --gsframe=[no|yes]      whether to generate SFrame stack trace information\n\
>>> -                          (default: no)\n"));
>>> +  --gsframe\n\
>>> +  --gsframe=[no|yes]      whether to generate SFrame stack trace information\n"));
>>
>> ... instead of this change I was expecting the lhs to simply become
>> --gsframe[={no|yes}] (as we have it elsewhere as well), and the mentioning
>> of the default to remain (I don't consider this just noise).
> 
> OK.
> 
>> Okay (also for
>> the branch; I'm pretty sure Nick won't object) when done like that.
> 
> To clarify: note that --gsframe didn't make it into the branch itself. I'd like for
> it to, though. Does that change your position?

Well, it of course does. If that other change was to go there, this one should,
too. Perhaps if, as you say, the original change isn't there yet, the two may
even want folding when pulling over. Yet whether to have them pulled over is
then indeed Nick's decision; I support it being taken, but I won't put any
effort in talking Nick into it.

Jan