From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8042 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2019 12:48:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8024 invoked by uid 89); 17 Sep 2019 12:48:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:48:49 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iACuU-0001QX-5x; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:48:46 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1864 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iACuT-00058d-Gm; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:48:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:48:00 -0000 Message-Id: <8336gvw0k4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Simon Marchi CC: carl@bordum.dk, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <7d725d34-8367-c875-2528-662605295645@simark.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:36:51 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb docs: do not format the ++ in C++ in man page References: <83o8zjwjdf.fsf@gnu.org> <7d725d34-8367-c875-2528-662605295645@simark.ca> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 > Cc: carl@bordum.dk, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Simon Marchi > Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:36:51 -0400 > > > I agree, but I'm also confused about the problem. If I go to that > > page, I don't see @t there, and looking at the page source reveals > > that C@t{++} has been correctly converted to C++. So I'm not > > sure why Carl sees something different. > > > > What am I missing here? > > > > Hi Eli, > > We are talking about the actual man page, as viewed with "man". The HTML (or info) version is rendered fine. > > I can view it by doing: > > 1. `cd gdb/doc` in the build directory > 2. `make man` > 3. `man -l gdb.1` Ah, OK. I do see @t{++} in the man page. I was confused by the reference to the HTML page and by patches posted that seemed to only affect HTML. So back to the topic: I do agree that the conversion tool should be taught about @t.