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 - Man page scan results for gcc
Summary: Man page scan results for gcc
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gcc
Version: 29
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Jelinek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FedoraManpagescan
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-08-02 08:29 UTC by Maryna Nalbandian
Modified: 2019-11-27 22:48 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-11-27 22:48:16 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Logs (deleted)
2018-08-02 08:29 UTC, Maryna Nalbandian
no flags Details

Description Maryna Nalbandian 2018-08-02 08:29:10 UTC
In order to improve usability of packages in Fedora, project Man Page Scan was created and its task is to provide consistency of man pages (and documentation in general). The results are now available for package maintainers to fix documentation issues.

If you need to re-run the check yourself, here is the simple process of man page check:

1. Download man-page-day from:

    https://pagure.io/ManualPageScan/blob/master/f/man-page-day.sh

2. Run the script:
    $ ./man-page-day.sh gcc

Comment 1 Maryna Nalbandian 2018-08-02 08:29:28 UTC
Created attachment 1472435 [details]
Logs

Comment 2 Dave Malcolm 2018-08-02 20:22:24 UTC
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.

Comment 3 Dave Malcolm 2018-08-03 08:50:27 UTC
(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

Comment 4 Jonathan Wakely 2018-08-03 11:20:35 UTC
(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.

Comment 5 Dave Malcolm 2018-08-03 15:51:43 UTC
(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

Comment 6 Jan Kurik 2018-08-14 10:47:49 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 29 development cycle.
Changing version to '29'.

Comment 7 Ben Cotton 2019-10-31 19:09:30 UTC
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.

Comment 8 Ben Cotton 2019-11-27 22:48:16 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.