Re: Iconv.html and iconv.html

Hi Mike,

On 2022-12-09 17:29, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 02 Dec 2022 17:06, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
>> I have been building a toolchain for the arm-none-eabi target using a
>> rather recent snapshot of newlib. While building the html documentation,
>> I noticed that there will be generated the two files named Iconv.html
>> and iconv.html.
>> While this works fine for case sensitive file systems, it's obvious that
>> this will not have the desired outcome on a case-insensitive file
>> system, such as on Windows system.
>>
>> The Iconv.html file contains the chapter description and the iconv.html
>> file contains the description of the iconv-function.
>>
>> Can someone, with the knowledge of how these filenames are generated,
>> change one of them so that the filenames differ on a case insensitive
>> file system?
> 
> the naming is straightforward -- the @node attribute is turned directly into
> the filename.  we use @node Iconv for the chapter and @node iconv for the C
> function APIs.  so the fix is to change one of them.
> 
> the sub-areas have a 1-to-1 mapping to the chapter (e.g. stdio/->Stdio,
> iconv/->Iconv, etc...).  the generated APIs similarly map source file
> names to the chapter (e.g. iconv.c->iconv, strncmp.c->strncmp).  but they
> can map any number of functions inside those source files, and we might
> rename them as makes sense in general for our organization.  so i'm more
> inclined to change the generated API chapters, and do it across the board
> instead of a one-off for iconv.c.
> 
> anyone want to bikeshed the naming convention ?  gen_xxx ?  src_xxx ?
> there doesn't seem to be a standard here in the GNU toolchain space that
> i can see.  bfd/ has a conflict, but they just do a one-off rename with
> bfd.texi->bfdt.texi for the makedoc output.


To me, I think "gen_xxx" is preferred in that case.
I think GDB has another of those conflicts (that is still to be solved) 
with qMemTags vs QMemTags.

Kind regards,
Torbjörn