On 13/07/2020 21:55, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 7/10/20 5:05 PM, Jonny Grant wrote: >> >> >> On 10/07/2020 23:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 22:47, Jonny Grant wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2020 09:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>>> Right at the bottom of the page is the link to the doc you've been >>>>> using, which says "Please note that the following documentation refers >>>>> to current development. Some information may not be applicable to any >>>>> existing release." >>>> >>>> The reality is, on big pages, people don't often get to the bottom of the page below 2.95.2. You're right, I missed that note down there. >>> >>> Which is why the docs for the unreleased development sources are >>> tucked away right at the end. >> >> Fair enough. >> >> I recall it came up via a google search for one of the options. If it had "dev" or "beta" in the URL it would be clearer. > > It's a common mistake. I agree that more prominently mentioning > the version would help. Including it in the file name seems like > a simple enough change. > > The manual does mention the GCC version (the cover page of the PDF > copy of the manual says "For GCC version 11.0.0 (pre-release), and > the Introduction section of the HTML version says "corresponds to > the compilers (GCC) version 11.0.0." That's helpful but not as > much as if every page mentioned it at the top (for the HTML, it > would have to be in the browser title bar), and if the URL of > development version also included it. Good morning Martin, Thank you for your reply. Would be good if the version be added to the pager and even the URL as "beta". GDB has a similar page https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/ It has the version number on the 2nd line after the title: This is the Tenth Edition, of Debugging with GDB: the GNU Source-Level Debugger for GDB (GDB) Version 10.0.50.20200715-git. This is the equivalent GCC page without the version: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ Cheers
