Re: Questions about man gcc-local
"Stanislav Syekirin" wrote: > > The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems > > are > > different, that different decisions have been made. Education is way > > more important than consistancy. > > I'm all for being educated about differences between architectures. I > think the current manual pages don't achieve it in this particular > regard. They don't, as far as I see, mention anywhere that there even > *are* gcc systems as opposed to clang systems. I've only learned about > it from this mailing list and from blog entries by Frederic Cambus. Well, now you know. > > This manual page is not hurting you. > > It does cause confusion (e.g. I see no way to find out from the manual > pages on which platforms the GNU assembler is part of the system and > on which platforms it is not; removing the man pages for certain > platforms might not be the solution, but the problem is real). And you are no longer confused.
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems are different, that different decisions have been made. Education is way more important than consistancy. I'm all for being educated about differences between architectures. I think the current manual pages don't achieve it in this particular regard. They don't, as far as I see, mention anywhere that there even *are* gcc systems as opposed to clang systems. I've only learned about it from this mailing list and from blog entries by Frederic Cambus. This manual page is not hurting you. It does cause confusion (e.g. I see no way to find out from the manual pages on which platforms the GNU assembler is part of the system and on which platforms it is not; removing the man pages for certain platforms might not be the solution, but the problem is real). Regards Stanislav On Fr, 03 Mär 2023 09:43:16 -0700 Theo de Raadt wrote: And I think you are INCORRECT. The #1 reason to make a manual page visible is for learning. The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems are different, that different decisions have been made. Education is way more important than consistancy. "Stanislav Syekirin" wrote: I agree. I would expect man pages for as(1), gcc(1), gcc-local(1) etc. to be present if as and gcc are present, and absent if they are absent. Or, alternatively, gcc-local(1) should document which platforms use gcc and which don't. Regards Stanislav On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:47:08 + Jason McIntyre wrote: > i don;t think we should be installing gcc-local(1) on any archs > where > gcc isnt happening: > $ uname -a > OpenBSD manila.kerhand.co.uk 7.2 GENERIC.MP#22 amd64 > $ man gcc > man: No entry for gcc in the manual. > jmc >
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
And I think you are INCORRECT. The #1 reason to make a manual page visible is for learning. The people on clang architectures need to know that the gcc systems are different, that different decisions have been made. Education is way more important than consistancy. This manual page is not hurting you. "Stanislav Syekirin" wrote: > I agree. I would expect man pages for as(1), gcc(1), gcc-local(1) > etc. to be present if as and gcc are present, and absent if they are > absent. Or, alternatively, gcc-local(1) should document which > platforms use gcc and which don't. > > Regards > Stanislav > > On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:47:08 + > Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > i don;t think we should be installing gcc-local(1) on any archs > > where > > gcc isnt happening: > > $ uname -a > > OpenBSD manila.kerhand.co.uk 7.2 GENERIC.MP#22 amd64 > > $ man gcc > > man: No entry for gcc in the manual. > > jmc > > >
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
I agree. I would expect man pages for as(1), gcc(1), gcc-local(1) etc. to be present if as and gcc are present, and absent if they are absent. Or, alternatively, gcc-local(1) should document which platforms use gcc and which don't. Regards Stanislav On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:47:08 + Jason McIntyre wrote: i don;t think we should be installing gcc-local(1) on any archs where gcc isnt happening: $ uname -a OpenBSD manila.kerhand.co.uk 7.2 GENERIC.MP#22 amd64 $ man gcc man: No entry for gcc in the manual. jmc
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
"Stanislav Syekirin" wrote: > On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:22:51 - (UTC) > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Archs which still use gcc in base do have the gcc(1) manual, >e.g. >sparc64 > > > > Thanks for the answer. However, > https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/sparc64/gcc is empty as well. I, > sadly, don't have an actual sparc64 machine so don't know what happens > there. You are asking for conflicting things, and you don't even realize it. Fixing all the Xr's and manaul page delivery to be 100% perfect is a can of worms not worth opening. It is perfect enough.
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
On Do, 2 Mär 2023 22:22:51 - (UTC) Stuart Henderson wrote: Archs which still use gcc in base do have the gcc(1) manual, e.g. sparc64 Thanks for the answer. However, https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/sparc64/gcc is empty as well. I, sadly, don't have an actual sparc64 machine so don't know what happens there. Regards Stanislav
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 10:22:51PM -, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2023-03-02, Stanislav Syekirin > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > is the man page for gcc-local > > (https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/gcc-local) up to date? It > > mentions, for example, i386, but OpenBSD 7.2 on i386 doesn't seem to > > include gcc. Also, the link to gcc(1) at the bottom of the man page is > > dead. > > Architectures which fully switched to clang as the base compiler don't > build the OpenBSD version of gcc any more. (They do have a newer gcc in > ports, in general those try to be in sync with changes to base gcc too - > for example PIE by default). > > Archs which still use gcc in base do have the gcc(1) manual, e.g. sparc64 > > i don;t think we should be installing gcc-local(1) on any archs where gcc isnt happening: $ uname -a OpenBSD manila.kerhand.co.uk 7.2 GENERIC.MP#22 amd64 $ man gcc man: No entry for gcc in the manual. jmc
Re: Questions about man gcc-local
On 2023-03-02, Stanislav Syekirin wrote: > Hi all, > > is the man page for gcc-local > (https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/gcc-local) up to date? It > mentions, for example, i386, but OpenBSD 7.2 on i386 doesn't seem to > include gcc. Also, the link to gcc(1) at the bottom of the man page is > dead. Architectures which fully switched to clang as the base compiler don't build the OpenBSD version of gcc any more. (They do have a newer gcc in ports, in general those try to be in sync with changes to base gcc too - for example PIE by default). Archs which still use gcc in base do have the gcc(1) manual, e.g. sparc64
Questions about man gcc-local
Hi all, is the man page for gcc-local (https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/gcc-local) up to date? It mentions, for example, i386, but OpenBSD 7.2 on i386 doesn't seem to include gcc. Also, the link to gcc(1) at the bottom of the man page is dead. Regards Stanislav
