On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, David Malcolm wrote: > The .opt.urls files it generates become part of the source tree, and > would be regenerated by maintainers whenever new options are added. > Forgetting to update the files (or not having Python 3 handy) merely > means that URLs might be missing or out of date until someone else > regenerates them.
Do I understand correctly that there are no makefile targets to regenerate these files; it's up to maintainers to regenerate them manually? Advantages: * No need to update contrib/gcc_update to handle timestamps for the files. * No modifications unexpectedly appearing in source trees, if the checked in files are out of date and you run a build with the timestamps such that the file gets regenerated. Disadvantages: * You need to know how to do the regeneration manually; "make" is the uniform way for generating any file the build system can generate, without needing more specific knowledge about that file. Given the recent discussion starting at <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-November/242835.html> of post-commit CI to detect auto*-generated files that aren't fully up to date, maybe it would be appropriate to add a check for .opt.urls files being up to date (including making sure that each .opt file does have a corresponding .opt.urls file checked in) to that CI? Since the Python script has hardcoded information about .opt files and corresponding URLs for target options documentation, the patch series should update sourcebuild.texi, section "Back End", to identify that script as one of the places to update when adding a new target back end. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
