[PATCH] etc: import changes to texi2pod.pl from gcc

[Andrew Burgess]

Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

>
> commit 1dd632a1865281fbc054e6af55dc1d4a371c4b61
> Author: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Jul 24 17:49:19 2026 +0100
>
>     etc: import changes to texi2pod.pl from gcc
>     
>     I was looking at making some cleanup in the GDB documentation and I
>     ran into a limitation of the texi2pod.pl script, it is not able to
>     correctly format: '@option{--text}' or '@table @option'.
>     
>     Patching our copy of texi2pod.pl is easy enough, but it is probably
>     better to just sync with gcc's version of the script, which already
>     has some @option support in place.
>     
>     I took the version from gcc commit 3f337c3d7e2 -- that's is reasonably
>     close to gcc's current HEAD.
>     
>     I then checked that the man pages for gcc, gas, binutils, ld, gprof,
>     and gprofng all regenerated without any changes.  Unfortunately that
>     wasn't the case, so I had to add back some local changes:
>     
>       1. Support for the --no-split option, see binutils-gdb commit
>          96a7037cd8573cf065aa6b12baca68696f96d9ca.
>     
>       2. Add support for TARGET as a man page section, see binutils-gdb
>          commit 6387924ae329fe2a89abb48b9868a340e23a9630.
>     
>       3. Revert gcc commit 386c402747d2bc6bad3e1bc2f9383d4d669576e0 to
>          allow our lists to be correctly formatted again.
>     
>     I suspect item (3) could be better fixed by understanding the original
>     gcc issue and crafting a smarter solution that both solves gcc's
>     original issue while also allowing our lists to be formatted
>     correctly.  However, given we've managed without (3) for years, and I
>     need to make some local fixes anyway, I propose just removing that
>     small part.  At least for now.
>     
>     One final note, this import from gcc changes the licence on the
>     texi2pod.pl script from GPLv2 to GPLv3.  As I understand it, GPL
>     allows for this roll forward, and most of binutils-gdb is under GPLv3,
>     so I don't see this being a problem.
>

I've gone ahead and checked this in.  If anyone sees any problems then
let me know and I'll get it sorted.

Thanks,
Andrew