[PATCH] gas: improve --gsframe documentation

[Sam James]

Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:

> 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.

I figured but wanted to verify. Thanks.

>
> Jan