Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 5:19 PM Segher Boessenkool > <segher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 04:25:18PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 1:26 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > ... >> > The problems with GCC seem to be a little larger then inaccurate docs. >> >> The GCC docs are perfectly accurate for this as well. >> >> GCC 7 is older than this revision of the ELFv2 specification, and we never >> backported this feature: only very important features are backported. It >> could have made 7.2, over two years ago, but it wasn't considered important >> enough to backport. > > Then you don't understand how search works in 2019 and how users > search for information. We cannot search for the absence of > information. Yeah, I think that's a good point. E.g.: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-Options gives no indication which version it's about, or how to find the corresponding page for older versions. It might be obvious to GCC developers that it's about trunk only, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone nativigating directly to the page from search results to know that. The "Introduction" section with the version is at the bottom of https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/, after a long table of contents. It's not even the first sentence in the introduction. It doesn't seem realistic to expect people to have read it. It would be great if we could have a banner at the top of the generated docs saying which version they're for and providing corresponding links to older versions. But that's obviously much easier said than done. :-) Thanks, Richard
