Read gcc info files on solaris; Seek online manual
Fred Ma
I'm using solaris 8 on sun blade 500 machines.
I am not the administrator. I browsed to through
the directory subtree in which gcc resides and
found lots of info files. On cygwin, I can use
the info command, but not on solaris. I did some
web searching and found that "info" is gnu specific.
On our system, the alternative is use the man pages,
but I don't find them very explanatory.
I searched for an info package at www.sunfreeware.com,
in hopes of asking the administrator to install it.
But it doesn't exist there. I went to the gcc homepage
http://gcc.gnu.org, but they don't have the online
manual for our version (3.2.1). Isn't it kind of odd
that they have online manuals for older and newer
versions, but not 3.2.1?
Anyway, is there a way to access the manual (not the
man pages) for gcc 3.2.1? Thanks.
Fred
--
Fred Ma
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1S 5B6
Neil W Rickert
>I searched for an info package at www.sunfreeware.com,
>in hopes of asking the administrator to install it.
>But it doesn't exist there. I went to the gcc homepage
It is possibly called "texinfo".
Fred Ma
I tried it, but it's not recognized. I also tried
"man -k texinfo", again without any hits. My MANPATH
is
/home/fma/INSTROOT/man:/usr/share/man:/usr/man/man:/usr/man:/usr/local/man:/opt/dt/man:/usr/openwin/man:/opt/x11/current/man:/usr/local/X11R5/man:/usr/perl5/man:/opt/utils/ddd/man:/opt/gdb/man:/CMC/tools/synopsys/sim/doc/sim/man:/CMC/tools/synopsys/sim/doc/cy/man
Thanks anyway.
Logan Shaw
> I'm using solaris 8 on sun blade 500 machines.
> I am not the administrator. I browsed to through
> the directory subtree in which gcc resides and
> found lots of info files.
In a pinch, you can just do "more" or "less" or "view" on them.
They are just text files. Yeah, they have an occasional control
character, but it has never been enough to throw off any text
viewer program I've used. You won't get the hyperlinks and
stuff this way, but you will get the information.
By the way, it works best to do something like "cat gcc.info* | less"
so that you can view them all at once, since you don't have the
ability to jump between files, and info files rely heavily on
that ability. If you want them in proper numerical order, you can
do a "ls -1 gcc.info* | sort -t- +1n | xargs cat | less".
- Logan
Andreas Borchert
> Anyway, is there a way to access the manual (not the
> man pages) for gcc 3.2.1? Thanks.
The source of these manuals is in texinfo. It can be processed
by TeX, giving results that can printed or previewed. Alternatively,
it can be converted into info files which were originally intended
for emacs. The info command is just a tool to access info files
outside of emacs.
So if you have emacs installed but are just missing info, you
should attempt to access the gcc info files with emacs. Note
that emacs is shipped with Solaris on the ``Software Companion'' CD.
Alternatively, you can attempt to google for it as there are
many info (or texinfo) to html cgi scripts on the web around.
Andreas.
--
Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | One should make everything
Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | as simple as possible, but
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | no simpler. -- A. Einstein
Maurizio Loreti
> On cygwin, I can use the info command, but not on solaris.
If you have emacs installed on Solaris, emacs can browse and display
info files.
--
Maurizio Loreti http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/mlo.html
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Padova, Italy ROT13: ybe...@cq.vasa.vg
Alan Coopersmith
|I searched for an info package at www.sunfreeware.com,
|in hopes of asking the administrator to install it.
|But it doesn't exist there.
Yes it does - the "info" command is part of the "texinfo" package,
which is available from the Sun Companion CD, sunfreeware.com, and
most other freeware sites.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith al...@alum.calberkeley.org
http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Joerg Schilling
Alan Coopersmith <al...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>Fred Ma <f...@doe.carleton.ca> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>|I searched for an info package at www.sunfreeware.com,
>|in hopes of asking the administrator to install it.
>|But it doesn't exist there.
>
>Yes it does - the "info" command is part of the "texinfo" package,
>which is available from the Sun Companion CD, sunfreeware.com, and
>most other freeware sites.
While I would brefer that FSF would move towards the standard 'man'
format which is part of the POSIX standard, the problem is that
Sun is installing 'info' to a place where nobody looks for it:
/usr/sfw/bin/info
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Fred Ma
>
> In article <bueh9u$1r49$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> Alan Coopersmith <al...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >Fred Ma <f...@doe.carleton.ca> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> >|I searched for an info package at www.sunfreeware.com,
> >|in hopes of asking the administrator to install it.
> >|But it doesn't exist there.
> >
> >Yes it does - the "info" command is part of the "texinfo" package,
> >which is available from the Sun Companion CD, sunfreeware.com, and
> >most other freeware sites.
>
> While I would brefer that FSF would move towards the standard 'man'
> format which is part of the POSIX standard, the problem is that
> Sun is installing 'info' to a place where nobody looks for it:
>
> /usr/sfw/bin/info
Thanks for all your suggestions: using "less", using "emacs",
converting to html, and the location of texinfo at
www.sunfreeware.com.
Since gcc and its documentation set is big and complicated,
I think the hyperlinking is important. I tried emacs, but
having used vi[m] for as long as I can remember, it's a
little difficult. Also, I'm getting caught into the trap
of spending lots of time getting to know tools, rather than
actual algorithm development e.g. just getting to know
info, vim's taglist, source-navigator, etc., etc.. So I'm
going to shy away from learning another app now (especially
since I already spent the time with info), but more than
likely, I will do so in the future.
That's just a long winded apology for not spending more time
to learn emacs right now (but the reasons are truthful).
I'll ask my system administrator to install texinfo when he
has a moemnt.
Thanks again.
Fred
P.S. Isn't info more powerful than man? We don't have
hyperlinks in man pages. Whenever I see an underlined
reference, I have no idea where to start looking for it.
Paul Eggert
> While I would brefer that FSF would move towards the standard 'man'
> format which is part of the POSIX standard,
Hmm, where is 'man' format specified by POSIX? POSIX specifies an
extremely minimal form of the 'man' command (and this only for systems
that support the User Portability Utilities option), but I don't see
where it specifies 'man' format.
Or perhaps you're referring to the textual format of the POSIX
standard itself? In that case, I'd say that it's not appropriate for
all forms of documentation; certainly not for GCC.
Markus Gyger
> While I would brefer that FSF would move towards the standard 'man'
Well, I'd prefer they would actually use a DocBook based format
like Sun is doing that then can be converted to HTML (like on
docs.sun.com) or to troff format on the fly (as man is doing).
[Solaris uses a modified version of the SGML DocBook 3.0 DTD (see
solbook(5) and /usr/share/lib/sgml/locale/C/dtds/solbookv2/) that
is used by a version of the docbook-to-man tool that is run by the
man command (see http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/tools/dtm/ and
ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/utilities/docbook-to-man.tar.gz and also
directory /usr/lib/sgml/ on Solaris). These man pages are in the
.../man/sman* instead of .../man* sudirectories. Later versions
of Solaris can also have man sections with more than one letter.]
Markus
Dan Espen
> P.S. Isn't info more powerful than man? We don't have
> hyperlinks in man pages. Whenever I see an underlined
> reference, I have no idea where to start looking for it.
When you read man pages with XEmacs,
references to other man pages are underlined,
and they ARE hyperlinks.
I don't mean this to be an XEmacs advertisement,
(make up your own mind)
but XEmacs does a pretty good job of emulating vi.
Personally, I NEED my source code to be highlighted.
I hate looking at code trying to figure out how it
could possible work only to eventually realize it's
commented out.
Oops, guess this is an XEmacs advertisement. Sorry.
Emacs is OK too.
Fred Ma
Years ago, I tried emacs (or maybe Xemacs). It was
OK (I mean, I didn't really get to know it real well).
Since I was thoroughly familiar with vi, I found gvim
much easier to use. I've come to rely alot on vim
functionality, including the hot keys for splitting,
moving, resizing, and closing windows, the tag
referencing abilities, syntax colorizing, and
many key bindings (to cobbled scripts), as well as
font control and advanced expression search. I'm
sure much of this can all be done on [X]emacs, and
that [X]emacs has its own strengths. But the thing
about power editors is that it takes much time to
become proficient at, and a hard dependence to shake
(assuming that my life depended on it). I would be
surprised if the vi mode of emacs can emulate vim.
I believe that was the mode I was using years ago.
And frankly, I gave the emacs tutorial a whirl
just the other day and realized that it would take
more than just a short time to get functional with
it. Not to say that vim doesn't, just that I'm
already handy with vim.
Anyway, I'm sure most people would agree that there
is a special afinity between a person and the first
editor they learn (be it vi-based or emacs based), so
the situation has to be fairly desparate to make it
worthwhile to surmount the barrier in switching.
For now, I'll talk to my sys admin and see the prospect
of installing info. Though it seems odd that gcc 3.2.1
web manual is missing from the gnu site. That would
sure solve the problem.
Fred
Joerg Schilling
Dan Espen <dan...@SPAM.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I NEED my source code to be highlighted.
Maybe you should start to decently indent them....
A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.
Maurizio Loreti
> A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
> auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.
Going OT... BUT... you didn't care to read the manual of the cc mode
distributed with every emacs tarball, did you? My .emacs has:
;; C-like languages major mode settings
;; ====================================
(defconst my-c-style
'((c-basic-offset . 2)
(c-comment-only-line-offset . 0)
(c-cleanup-list . (brace-else-brace
brace-elseif-brace
brace-catch-brace
empty-defun-braces
defun-close-semi
list-close-comma
scope-operator))
(c-hanging-braces-alist . ((brace-list-open)
(substatement-open after)
(block-close . c-snug-do-while)
(extern-lang-open after)
(class-open after)
(defun-open after)))
(c-offsets-alist . ((statement-block-intro . +)
(knr-argdecl-intro . 0)
(arglist-intro . +)
(substatement-open . +)
(label . 0)
(statement-cont . +)
(case-label . +)
(arglist-close . 0))))
"MLO C programming style")
(defun my-c-mode-common-hook ()
"Add my personal mode for C programming"
(c-add-style "MLO" my-c-style t)
; (c-toggle-auto-state 1)
(c-toggle-hungry-state 1)
; (setq c-echo-syntactic-information-p t)
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil))
(add-hook 'c-mode-common-hook 'my-c-mode-common-hook)
Dan Espen
> j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
>> A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
>> auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.
>
> Going OT... BUT... you didn't care to read the manual of the cc mode
> distributed with every emacs tarball, did you? My .emacs has:
>
> ;; C-like languages major mode settings
> ;; ====================================
>
> (defconst my-c-style
I agree and besides that, how about multiple styles depending
on the project you are working on:
(defun my-c-mode-hook ()
(if (string-match "fvwm" buffer-file-name) ;fvwm project settings:
(progn
(setq
c-indent-level 8
c-basic-offset 8
c-brace-offset 0
c-continued-brace-offset 0
c-brace-imaginary-offset 0
c-continued-statement-offset 0
c-label-offset 0
c-argdecl-indent 0
c-auto-newline nil
c-tab-always-indent t
indent-tabs-mode t)
(c-set-offset 'substatement-open 0))
;; Local site default settings
(setq
c-indent-level 2 ; Indent inside block
c-basic-offset 2
c-brace-offset 0 ; for braces, compared with other text in same context
c-continued-brace-offset 0 ; Extra for substatements start with open-braces
c-brace-imaginary-offset 0
c-continued-statement-offset 2 ; Extra for lines not starting new statements
c-label-offset -2 ; Offset of label, case relative to usual indentation
c-argdecl-indent 0 ; Indentation level of C function arguments
c-auto-newline nil ; Non-nil automatically newline before and after braces
c-tab-always-indent t
indent-tabs-mode nil
comment-column 40)))
(add-hook 'c-mode-hook 'my-c-mode-hook t)
I don't see RMS forcing me into anything.
Of course I mostly use XEmacs, so the anti-RMS comment makes no sense at all.
David Combs
Fred Ma <f...@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
...
>I think the hyperlinking is important. I tried emacs, but
>having used vi[m] for as long as I can remember, it's a
>little difficult. Also, I'm getting caught into the trap
>of spending lots of time getting to know tools, rather than
>actual algorithm development e.g. just getting to know
>info, vim's taglist, source-navigator, etc., etc.. So I'm
>going to shy away from learning another app now (especially
>since I already spent the time with info), but more than
>likely, I will do so in the future.
(1) It's hard to imagine time *better* spent than
spending it learning emacs.
Emacs is something, once learned a bit of (you'll *never* learn
all of it -- nor will anyone else!), you'll use almost every
minute you're on the computer.
I can't think of *anything* that'll boost your throughput
as much as emacs-skill will.
(Obviously, don't take my word for it; perhaps, however,
a bunch of people will followup either denying or verifying
it.)
(2) By far the easiest, most painless way to learn the rudiments
of emacs is by taking it's tutorial. Simply run emacs,
then type in only these two characters: C-h t (control-h
followed by a "t").
Then just do what it says. 100% painless!
Have fun
(Oh, sometime while learning (taking the tutorial), type
in "M-x doctor", and have a conversation with the shrink.
You'll enjoy this famous (infamous?) A-I-ish program
from way back in the 70's.)
David
David Combs
in ways I never looked into):
vi, vim, etc, are editing *tools*. When you need to
edit some text, you "run" that editor-program "on" the
file you want to edit.
You finish that bit of editing, and you exit out of
the editor, restarting a fresh copy of it only when
you again want to edit something.
Emacs -- different concept altogether.
Sure, you *can* use it that way, but no one
does. Once you start up emacs, you *keep it up*,
and basically *live in it*, doing just about anything
yoiu need to do, unless if it requires using a mouse,
or requires its own gui, like if it's showing color photos --
emacs being *text based*.
You're in emacs, and want to give a shell-command,
like run egrep and pipe that to sort etc -- you
simply say "M-x shell", and it gives you a new emacs-buffer
titled *shell*, which *is* running your standard shell
(from passwd), eg sh, csh, ksh, bash, whatever you've set-up.
Try emacs for a while -- soon you'll be a convert, raving
about what an incredible (no, I won't say "editor", that's
*way* too limiting) piece of software.
Give it a few minutes with that C-h t tutorial,
and you'll see!
David
Oh, be aware of gnu.emacs.help and comp.emacs newsgroups --
lots of expert advice and help there.
Fred Ma
Hi, David,
I did spend some time with it. I think, like any powerful
tool, it just takes lots of time before I can get the
functionality I was looking for. I don't doubt that
emacs can be as wonderful as you described, but for me
to get to that point from my current point will have to
happen when I have more time. I suspect that's why
people have different work flows, because they happen
to be exposed to certain things in building their
personal knowledge. You can't just rip it all down
to replace it with another work flow overnight. One can
incrementally move around and, with time, become familiar
with alternative working flows, but the more established
one will probably always be more productive for any
particular individual. There's alot of time invested into
an making an individual's workflow work well for him/her.
While breadth versus depth is
always a balance, I think many people are in the position
where they have to leverage their established knowledge
for a certain amount of productivity, and expand/explore
alternatives with the remaining time. Even then, there
are many different situation-specific priorities. But
thanks for the glimpse into the level to which emacs can
be leveraged, given sufficient exposure and familiarity.
Fred
André Pönitz
> Emacs is something, once learned a bit of (you'll *never* learn
> all of it -- nor will anyone else!), you'll use almost every
> minute you're on the computer.
> (Oh, sometime while learning (taking the tutorial), type
> in "M-x doctor", and have a conversation with the shrink.
That's the explanation I've been looking for for years...
Andre'