doc: Ada: include Indices and Tables in manuals
Commit Message
Similarly to other manuals, we should include the page
in HTML builder.
What Ada folks think about it?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ada/ChangeLog:
* doc/gnat-style/index.rst: Add Indicies and Tables.
* doc/gnat_rm/index.rst: Likewise.
* doc/gnat_ugn/index.rst: Likewise.
* doc/gnat-style/indices-and-tables.rst: New file.
* doc/gnat_rm/indices-and-tables.rst: New file.
* doc/gnat_ugn/indices-and-tables.rst: New file.
---
gcc/ada/doc/gnat-style/index.rst | 1 +
gcc/ada/doc/gnat-style/indices-and-tables.rst | 1 +
gcc/ada/doc/gnat_rm/index.rst | 1 +
gcc/ada/doc/gnat_rm/indices-and-tables.rst | 1 +
gcc/ada/doc/gnat_ugn/index.rst | 2 +-
gcc/ada/doc/gnat_ugn/indices-and-tables.rst | 1 +
6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/ada/doc/gnat-style/indices-and-tables.rst
create mode 100644 gcc/ada/doc/gnat_rm/indices-and-tables.rst
create mode 100644 gcc/ada/doc/gnat_ugn/indices-and-tables.rst
Comments
> Similarly to other manuals, we should include the page
> in HTML builder.
>
> What Ada folks think about it?
The latest changes have broken our build of the Ada doc at AdaCore so until further notice, please do not make any additional changes to the Ada doc while we review in details all the recent changes and find a way to recover, thank you.
Arno
On 11/11/22 18:25, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
>> Similarly to other manuals, we should include the page
>> in HTML builder.
>>
>> What Ada folks think about it?
>
> The latest changes have broken our build of the Ada doc at AdaCore so until further notice, please do not make any additional changes to the Ada doc while we review in details all the recent changes and find a way to recover, thank you.
Hello.
Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
any feedback for a couple of weeks.
Martin
>
> Arno
> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
Arno
On 11/13/22 13:26, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
>> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
>
> Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
Sure, but sending a patch set to gcc-patches wouldn't have worked either, we've got quite a strict
email size limit.
Anyway, hope the AdaCore build would be fixable with a reasonable amount of effort?
Martin
>
> Arno
> >> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
> >> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
> >
> > Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
>
> Sure, but sending a patch set to gcc-patches wouldn't have worked either, we've got quite a strict
> email size limit.
>
> Anyway, hope the AdaCore build would be fixable with a reasonable amount of effort?
Unclear yet. We'll probably need to change and possibly partially revert the
Ada changes, we'll see.
Arno
On 11/13/22 18:03, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>>> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
>>>> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
>>>
>>> Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
>>
>> Sure, but sending a patch set to gcc-patches wouldn't have worked either, we've got quite a strict
>> email size limit.
>>
>> Anyway, hope the AdaCore build would be fixable with a reasonable amount of effort?
>
> Unclear yet. We'll probably need to change and possibly partially revert the
> Ada changes, we'll see.
>
> Arno
Hello.
Note the Sphinx changes will be reverted today:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-November/239983.html
Sorry for your extra work.
Martin
> >>>> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
> >>>> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
> >>>
> >>> Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
> >>
> >> Sure, but sending a patch set to gcc-patches wouldn't have worked either, we've got quite a strict
> >> email size limit.
Note that the Ada part should have been quite limited in size given that the
doc was already in .rst format, which is why I was expecting a smaller patch
to review on the Ada side.
> >> Anyway, hope the AdaCore build would be fixable with a reasonable amount of effort?
> >
> > Unclear yet. We'll probably need to change and possibly partially revert the
> > Ada changes, we'll see.
>
> Hello.
>
> Note the Sphinx changes will be reverted today:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-November/239983.html
>
> Sorry for your extra work.
Understood, thanks for your efforts and sorry you had to revert.
Clearly a change which requires a bleeding edge version of sphinx cannot be
pushed at this stage, that's premature.
Cheers,
Arno
On 11/14/22 08:32, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry for the breakage. However, I contacted you (and your colleague) and haven't received
>>>>>> any feedback for a couple of weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right although I did give you feedback that what you sent wasn’t in a suitable form for review wrt Ada.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but sending a patch set to gcc-patches wouldn't have worked either, we've got quite a strict
>>>> email size limit.
>
> Note that the Ada part should have been quite limited in size given that the
> doc was already in .rst format, which is why I was expecting a smaller patch
> to review on the Ada side.
Yes, I made basically folder shuffling of the Ada files, but the .rst files itself were
mainly untouched. Plus, these was ambition having baseconf.py which would set-up common
settings for all Sphinx manuals.
>
>>>> Anyway, hope the AdaCore build would be fixable with a reasonable amount of effort?
>>>
>>> Unclear yet. We'll probably need to change and possibly partially revert the
>>> Ada changes, we'll see.
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Note the Sphinx changes will be reverted today:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-November/239983.html
>>
>> Sorry for your extra work.
>
> Understood, thanks for your efforts and sorry you had to revert.
Thank you.
>
> Clearly a change which requires a bleeding edge version of sphinx cannot be
> pushed at this stage, that's premature.
Yes, depending on bleeding edge version was of one the problem.
Cheers,
Martin
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arno
@@ -689,3 +689,4 @@ Program Structure and Compilation Issues
.. toctree::
gnu_free_documentation_license
+ indices-and-tables
\ No newline at end of file
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.. include:: ../../../../doc/indices-and-tables.rst
@@ -68,3 +68,4 @@ GNAT Reference Manual
:maxdepth: 3
gnu_free_documentation_license
+ indices-and-tables
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.. include:: ../../../../doc/indices-and-tables.rst
@@ -59,5 +59,5 @@ GNAT User's Guide for Native Platforms
C. Elaboration Order Handling in GNAT <elaboration_order_handling_in_gnat>
D. Inline Assembler <inline_assembler>
E. GNU Free Documentation License <gnu_free_documentation_license>
-
+ F. Indices and Tables <indices-and-tables>
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.. include:: ../../../../doc/indices-and-tables.rst