Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs.

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>]

On 12 March 2023 03:47:08 CET, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>On 3/11/2023 6:39 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> On 11 March 2023 18:33:46 CET, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This fixes a minor issue where the zero-length-bound docs read "See See
>>> Zero Length."
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>     * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Remove errant 'See'
>>>     before @xref.
>>> ---
>>>  gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> index 3a6a97862b0..174d160dd6c 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> @@ -8345,7 +8345,7 @@ conversions the warnings @option{-Wno-int-to-pointer-cast} and
>>>  @item -Wzero-length-bounds
>>>  Warn about accesses to elements of zero-length array members that might
>>>  overlap other members of the same object.  Declaring interior zero-length
>>> -arrays is discouraged because accesses to them are undefined.  See
>>> +arrays is discouraged because accesses to them are undefined.
>>>  @xref{Zero Length}.
>>
>> I'm not a native speaker, but wouldn't it be better to talk about singular access, i.e. s/accesses/access/ in both cases?
>>
>> thanks,
>
>As a native speaker it does not feel ergonomic to use 'accesses' in this
>context but it also does not feel objectively wrong. I'm happy to
>provide a follow-up patch if you feel strongly about it.

I'd prefer the singular but defer to the documentation maintainers.

thanks,