On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 11:29:11AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi, > > Jonathan Gray wrote on Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:28:45PM +1100: > > > The binary is installed on all architectures that build llvm as > > /usr/bin/ld.lld and is also installed as /usr/bin/ld on arm64. > > > > With ld.1 from binutils and ld.lld.1 with ld in .Nm 'man ld' will pick > > the binutils page but the ld.lld.1 page will show up in 'man -a ld' even > > on architectures where ld is not lld. > > First, all manual pages are supposed to be in distrib/sets/lists/*/mi, > not in distrib/sets/lists/*/md.*. I know that as.1 and gdb.1 violate > that, being in comp/md.*, which we should maybe fix, but that's a > distinct issue. Anyway, making anything manual-page related depend > on TARGET_ARCH looks somewhat dubious to me.
There are other pages, ie gcc.1 gcov.1 aren't present on arm64. We don't install gcc3/gcc4 manual pages in architecture specific directories currently. Or llvm manual pages on architectures that don't build llvm. And cpp.1 cc.1 c++.1 etc. > > Assuming we want to keep the installation of manual pages mi, > there are two different issues. > > 1. Which page should man(1) show? > 2. How should the NAME section look like? > > Regarding question 1, ideally, > > - man ld.lld must always show this new page > - man -S arm64 ld should show this new page > - man -S i386 ld should show the GNU ld(1) page > > That would require having these files: > > - /usr/share/man/man1/ld.lld.1 > - /usr/share/man/man1/arm64/ld.1 > - /usr/share/man/man1/i386/ld.1 (different from previous) > - /usr/share/man/man1/*/ld.1 (same as previous) > > And *not* having this file: > > - /usr/share/man/man1/ld.1 > > Regarding question 2, ideally, it would require man1/ld.lld.1 and > man1/arm64/ld.1 to have different content in the NAME section. But > that would be a pain to maintain, so i guess we do not want to do > that. Which means that we do *not* add .Nm ld to NAME in ld.lld.1, > as a compromise. > > So back to question 1. Getting rid of man1/ld.1 and > installing the correct man1/*/ld.1 links instead requires > fiddling with the GNU binutils build system, which seems > unrelated to this diff. We can decide later whether or not > we want that. > > For now, i suggest that you import the new file and install > it as /usr/share/man/man1/ld.lld.1, mi, without the MLINKS > line in usr.bin/clang/lld/Makefile. > > If you want, you can already install a hard link from > /usr/share/man/man1/ld.lld.1 to /usr/share/man/man1/arm64/ld.1, > even though man(1) will not yet show that for "man -S arm64 ls" > yet as long as man1/ld.1 exists (mi pages are preferred even > with -S). But at least it will already show up in "man -aS arm64 ld" > and in "man -w ld". This diff was prompted by arm64 checkflist showing a missing file for ld.1 on arm64. While I agree the ideal case would have the pages moved to md directories for the conflicting pages none of the toolchain pages seem to do that at the moment.
