On Mon, 2026-01-26 at 17:21 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 1/25/26 15:59, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 2:56 PM Sandra Loosemore > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > My recent commits for PR122243 added index entries for -fno-* > > > options > > > as well as their normal positive forms. Apparently the > > > "urlifier" > > > used to insert option URLS into diagnostic messages can find the > > > anchor for either form, but its self-tests are hard-wired to > > > match > > > only the positive form for the two specific options it's looking > > > up. > > > This patch robustifies it to allow it to match the anchor for > > > either > > > the positive or negative forms. > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog > > > * gcc-urlifier.cc (test_gcc_urlifier): Match either > > > positive > > > or negative option URLS. > > > > Ok. > > > > I pushed this patch last night to fix the build failure, but I spent > some more time today looking at the problem. > > The regenerate-opt-urls.py script processes the entries in the > generated > HTML file for the options sequentially -- it's alphabetized, so it > sees > the entry for -fno-pack-struct before -fpack-struct, but -finline > before > -fno-inline. And it uses the anchor from the first one it sees, even > though it always strips any "no-" from the option name associated > with > that index entry.
Aha - good catch; thanks. > > I think what it ought to be doing is always using the anchor for the > positive option with the positive form of the option name and > ignoring > the no- anchor, unless there isn't an index entry for the positive > form > at all. (There are, in fact, some options that only exist in the > negative form, or where the negative form is the only one > documented.) > While both anchors ought to be in the same place in the output text, > it's pretty weird for anybody who looks at the links to see a > reference > to -fpack-struct pointing at the anchor for -fno-pack-struct instead. I can implement that. > > I am unfortunately not very fluent in Python (I use it so rarely that > I > have to re-learn it from scratch every time I have to do anything). > Does anybody else want to take a stab at this? Should I just file an > issue and throw it in the pile? Please can you file this in BZ, and assign it to me; I'll try to take a look tomorrow (assuming that this is suitable for stage 4, which I think is reasonable). Thanks! Dave > > -Sandra >
