Re: clang manual page?

On 6 April 2018 at 07:25, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > With lld there wasn't even *any* form of command line documentation > yet, which is why Ed slapped together a man page (that could probably > still use more details). It should really be upstreamed, in Sphinx's > RST format,

Re: clang manual page?

On 6 Apr 2018, at 20:39, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> Yes, but that manual is also pretty much incomplete, so with the last >> import I decided to stay with the older perl doc based one. Upstream >>

Re: clang manual page?

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > Yes, but that manual is also pretty much incomplete, so with the last > import I decided to stay with the older perl doc based one. Upstream > is pretty bad at writing detailed documentation, certainly in the form > of man pages. >

Re: clang manual page?

On 6 Apr 2018, at 07:20, David Chisnall wrote: > > On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote: >> >> On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. >>> >>> % man gcc >>> No manual entry for gcc >>>

Re: clang manual page?

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:20:41AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote: > > > > > > On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. > >> > >> % man gcc > >> No manual entry for gcc >

Re: clang manual page?

On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote: > > > On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote: >> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. >> >> % man gcc >> No manual entry for gcc >> >> If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be >> documented

Re: clang manual page?

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:11:50PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that > > referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little > > help. In fact, your 7 word response is

Re: clang manual page?

I think we're on the same page about the deficiency of system Clang's manual page, if little else... On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that > referring a user to a non-existent manual

Re: clang manual page?

To a first order approximation, the manual page for clang is gcc(1). Conrad On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually > document the available options? > > % man clang > (search for -std=) >

Re: clang manual page?

I never said it was in base. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. > > % man gcc > No manual entry for gcc > > If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be > documented better

Re: clang manual page?

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that > referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little > help. In fact, your 7 word response is an affirmation that > the tools supplied in base should be properly

Re: clang manual page?

I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little help. In fact, your 7 word response is an affirmation that the tools supplied in base should be properly documented. -- steve On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:42:58PM -0700,

Re: clang manual page?

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:30:04PM -0700, Pete Wright wrote: > > > On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote: > > This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. > > > > % man gcc > > No manual entry for gcc > > > > If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be > > documented

Re: clang manual page?

On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote: This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. % man gcc No manual entry for gcc If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be documented better than it currently is. Ian's suggests for 'clang --help' is even worse % clang

Re: clang manual page?

This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system. % man gcc No manual entry for gcc If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be documented better than it currently is. Ian's suggests for 'clang --help' is even worse % clang --help | grep -- -std -cl-std= OpenCL

Re: clang manual page?

On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 15:38 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually > document the available options? > > % man clang > (search for -std=) >    -std= >   Specify the language standard to compile for. > > OK, what does mean? > clang

clang manual page?

Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually document the available options? % man clang (search for -std=) -std= Specify the language standard to compile for. OK, what does mean? -- Steve ___