* [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. [not found] <f82b00e1-1263-79cc-78d8-887a5580026f@seanbright.com> @ 2023-03-11 17:33 ` Sean Bright 2023-03-11 23:39 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Bright @ 2023-03-11 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches 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}. For example, the first two stores in function @code{bad} are diagnosed -- 2.34.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. 2023-03-11 17:33 ` [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs Sean Bright @ 2023-03-11 23:39 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 2023-03-12 2:47 ` Sean Bright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2023-03-11 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Bright, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches, gcc-patches 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, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. 2023-03-11 23:39 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2023-03-12 2:47 ` Sean Bright 2023-03-12 8:12 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Bright @ 2023-03-12 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Bright via Gcc-patches 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. Kind regards, Sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. 2023-03-12 2:47 ` Sean Bright @ 2023-03-12 8:12 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 2023-03-12 19:32 ` Sandra Loosemore 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2023-03-12 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Bright, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches 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, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. 2023-03-12 8:12 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2023-03-12 19:32 ` Sandra Loosemore 2023-03-13 13:40 ` Sean Bright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sandra Loosemore @ 2023-03-12 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Sean Bright, Gcc-patches On 3/12/23 01:12, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote: > 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. I think the patch is fine as posted, with "accesses/are". Sean, do you need somebody to push this for you? -Sandra ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs. 2023-03-12 19:32 ` Sandra Loosemore @ 2023-03-13 13:40 ` Sean Bright 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Bright @ 2023-03-13 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sandra Loosemore, Gcc-patches On 3/12/2023 3:32 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 3/12/23 01:12, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote: >> 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. > I think the patch is fine as posted, with "accesses/are". Sean, do you > need somebody to push this for you? > > -Sandra Yes I do. I apologize for not mentioning up front that I lacked write access. Kind regards, Sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-13 13:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <f82b00e1-1263-79cc-78d8-887a5580026f@seanbright.com>
2023-03-11 17:33 ` [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs Sean Bright
2023-03-11 23:39 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-03-12 2:47 ` Sean Bright
2023-03-12 8:12 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-03-12 19:32 ` Sandra Loosemore
2023-03-13 13:40 ` Sean Bright
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).