On 6 April 2018 at 07:25, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> With lld there wasn't even *any* form of command line documentation
> yet, which is why Ed slapped together a man page (that could probably
> still use more details). It should really be upstreamed, in Sphinx's
> RST format, or since they appear
On 6 Apr 2018, at 20:39, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> Yes, but that manual is also pretty much incomplete, so with the last
>> import I decided to stay with the older perl doc based one. Upstream
>> is pretty bad at writing detailed do
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Yes, but that manual is also pretty much incomplete, so with the last
> import I decided to stay with the older perl doc based one. Upstream
> is pretty bad at writing detailed documentation, certainly in the form
> of man pages.
>
On 6 Apr 2018, at 07:20, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
>>> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
>>>
>>> % man gcc
>>> No manual entry for gcc
>>>
>>> If the system compiler is clang/clang++
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:20:41AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
> >>
> >> % man gcc
> >> No manual entry for gcc
> >>
> >> If the system
On 6 Apr 2018, at 01:30, Pete Wright wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
>>
>> % man gcc
>> No manual entry for gcc
>>
>> If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be
>> documented better than it current
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:11:50PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that
> > referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little
> > help. In fact, your 7 word response is
I think we're on the same page about the deficiency of system Clang's
manual page, if little else...
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that
> referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little
> help. In fact, you
To a first order approximation, the manual page for clang is gcc(1).
Conrad
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually
> document the available options?
>
> % man clang
> (search for -std=)
>-std=
> Specify
I never said it was in base.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
>
> % man gcc
> No manual entry for gcc
>
> If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be
> documented better than it currently is. Ian's sugges
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that
> referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little
> help. In fact, your 7 word response is an affirmation that
> the tools supplied in base should be properly docu
I never said that you said it was in base. I'm noting that
referring a user to a non-existent manual page is of little
help. In fact, your 7 word response is an affirmation that
the tools supplied in base should be properly documented.
--
steve
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:42:58PM -0700, Conra
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:30:04PM -0700, Pete Wright wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
> >
> > % man gcc
> > No manual entry for gcc
> >
> > If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be
> > documented b
On 04/05/2018 17:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
% man gcc
No manual entry for gcc
If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be
documented better than it currently is. Ian's suggests for
'clang --help' is even worse
% clang --he
This assumes that a gcc(1) is available on the system.
% man gcc
No manual entry for gcc
If the system compiler is clang/clang++, then it ought to be
documented better than it currently is. Ian's suggests for
'clang --help' is even worse
% clang --help | grep -- -std
-cl-std= OpenCL
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 15:38 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually
> document the available options?
>
> % man clang
> (search for -std=)
> -std=
> Specify the language standard to compile for.
>
> OK, what does mean?
>
clang -
Is anyone working on fixing the clang manual to actually
document the available options?
% man clang
(search for -std=)
-std=
Specify the language standard to compile for.
OK, what does mean?
--
Steve
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.
17 matches
Mail list logo