Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1611292
Summary: | Man page scan results for gcc | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Maryna Nalbandian <mnalband> | ||||
Component: | gcc | Assignee: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 29 | CC: | dkutalek, dmalcolm, fweimer, jakub, jwakely, law, mpolacek, msebor, nickc | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2019-11-27 22:48:16 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 1600386 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Maryna Nalbandian
2018-08-02 08:29:10 UTC
Created attachment 1472435 [details]
Logs
I looked at the repeated words warnings. (this would be *much* easier if it gave file and line/column number of the decompressed manpage; I've filed this as an RFE at https://pagure.io/ManualPageScan/issue/4 ) Repeated words in gcc.1 upstream trunk (r263243): "-fchkp-check-read -fchkp-check-read" This didn't seem to be in trunk. "function function" False positive; filed as https://pagure.io/ManualPageScan/issue/5 Part of "-fno-builtin-function"; this comes from: invoke.texi:2102:only the built-in function @var{function} is The generated gcc.1 has: "only the built-in function \fIfunction\fR is" which shows up sanely when viewed in "man", but the testing script doesn't look at that markup. "template template" This shows up twice in "-fnew-ttp-matching", from: @item -fnew-ttp-matching @opindex fnew-ttp-matching Enable the P0522 resolution to Core issue 150, template template parameters and default arguments: this allows a template with default template arguments as an argument for a template template parameter with fewer template parameters. This flag is enabled by default for @option{-std=c++17}. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0522r0.html though this uses "template template-parameter"; maybe we should??? "calls calls" Part of -Wnoexcept-type; a genuine typo. "Warnings Warnings" False positive. The test doesn't use the newline here: Options to Request or Suppress Warnings Warnings are diagnostic messages [...snip...] Filed as https://pagure.io/ManualPageScan/issue/6 "is is" Part of -Wif-not-aligned; a genuine typo. "the the" Part of -flto; a genuine typo. "-MD -MD" False positive here: "-MD -MD is equivalent to [...snip...] due to the test not respecting the markup (issue 5 again) "predicate predicate" False positives; issue 5 again. This repeat shows up twice, in "-A predicate=answer" and "-A -predicate=answer" Similar to the "function function" case above, the generated gcc.1 has markup, e.g.: "Cancel an assertion with the predicate \fIpredicate\fR " "symbol symbol" False positive; issue 5 again. Part of "-u symbol"; similar false positive to the above; the generated gcc.1 has markup: "Pretend the symbol \fIsymbol\fR is undefined" "v5.00.b, v5.00.b," Part of "MicroBlaze Options" -mcpu=cpu-type Looks like a genuine typo. "and and" Part of "-mgprel-sec=regexp" within "MSP430 Options" Looks like a genuine typo. "-mfloat12 -mfloat12" Seems to be a false positive, due to "-mfloat128 -mfloat128-hardware" with the latter being chopped into "-mfloat128" and "-hardware" by the "tr" invocation in the test script. "-mreadonly-in-sdata -mreadonly-in-sdata" Doesn't affect trunk '"vmldLog102", "vmldLog102",' '"vmlsLog104", "vmlsLog104",' Part of "-mveclibabi=type" within "x86 Options" Looks like genuine typos in invoke.texi. "file file" Two occurrences, which appear to be false postives (issue 5 again) "-o file" and in "DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT". Repeated words in gcov.1 upstream trunk (r263243): "to to" A genuine typo (in "--hash-filenames") I'm testing a patch (for trunk) that fixes the genuine typos above. (In reply to Dave Malcolm from comment #2) > I looked at the repeated words warnings. [...snip...] > I'm testing a patch (for trunk) that fixes the genuine typos above. I've proposed this patch upstream: "[PATCH] docs: fix stray duplicated words" https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00265.html (In reply to Dave Malcolm from comment #2) > "template template" > This shows up twice in "-fnew-ttp-matching", from: > @item -fnew-ttp-matching > @opindex fnew-ttp-matching > Enable the P0522 resolution to Core issue 150, template template > parameters and default arguments: this allows a template with default > template arguments as an argument for a template template parameter > with fewer template parameters. This flag is enabled by default for > @option{-std=c++17}. > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0522r0.html > though this uses "template template-parameter"; maybe we should??? No, I don't think we should. "template-parameter" in P0522R0 is an italicised grammar term, i.e. a formal part of the C++ grammar. Grammar terms are always hyphenated so that it doesn't look like two separate terms next to each other. In that context, a template /template-parameter/ is a /template-parameter/ which is a template. But it's also used un-italicised when not referring to the grammar term (see e.g. [temp.func.order] in the C++17 standard), which is how it's used in the GCC docs. We're talking about parameters of templates, not the formal grammar productions, so "template parameter" is right. (In reply to Dave Malcolm from comment #3) > (In reply to Dave Malcolm from comment #2) > > I looked at the repeated words warnings. > [...snip...] > > I'm testing a patch (for trunk) that fixes the genuine typos above. > > I've proposed this patch upstream: > "[PATCH] docs: fix stray duplicated words" > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00265.html Committed to upstream trunk (for gcc 9) as r263295: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=263295 This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 29 development cycle. Changing version to '29'. This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |