From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-xa33.google.com (mail-vk1-xa33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a33]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 841F43858C55; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:29:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 841F43858C55 Received: by mail-vk1-xa33.google.com with SMTP id bc42so6721893vkb.12; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:29:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PqPt0hUoAliNc53q0WoS7xlcmtw85dfhcqQ3BthNpH4=; b=mpVDdLmPbA0dSTgbxzeiSSPIfZyb7ByoYgEpdL4VUWCfFZC8LkFy0lT/htBq5+EUsA ezOhVRyS7qyx0znAQiVI/j7+gs7F8wTfVgHQyxZQ85ZwRC+sanw7v8NeIHViZeXVfqr/ nybvj50xfO95LjiMARRmrcvskzoM6REFh7VkAnXEokujWOGTjhzr7oWqZYQVVDSrwOgU cnBuGDYQR0HMoRCQs1omgAviRij9JQ5CJIphWvBSGMDwo11CZ438LxwVi0l77d+6gGHr Lf0RhJi1eIK33A3Z3vy4Zp93gidVVr+e+mGl/orhsmKXfeBxGUDIg4ZAD5nT5QSoOR9H ehuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uz6JXb781XZC/2tNfSk/vJVi7mNfG0NEN+p1Jv0uHahZBkagA MRbJe3Xbb4UnteaeGEVS55naizg4WbeiQuuX5OQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+vAc7NndsFj9zV7CE2Q85szZ9L+zyzsPQT8vbSs41jVx65tYSSaTmcVk35fWGEXj8zrUDRk9LtDndcUKZK3k= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:6a05:0:b0:33f:d8a6:f6f3 with SMTP id f5-20020a1f6a05000000b0033fd8a6f6f3mr4774132vkc.4.1650868142844; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:29:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220411162348.91975-1-pc@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:28:50 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in extend.texi To: "Paul A. Clarke" Cc: ghazi@gcc.gnu.org, GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:29:04 -0000 On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:02 PM Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:23:48AM -0500, Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches wrote: > > In commit a2a919aa501e3 (2003), built-ins for modf and modff were added. > > In extend.texi, section "Other Builtins", "modf" was added to the paragraph > > "There are also built-in versions of the ISO C99 functions [...]" and > > "modf" was also added to the paragraph "The ISO C90 functions [...]". > > "modff" was not added to either paragraph. > > > > Based on the context clues about where "modfl" and other similar function > > pairs like "powf/powl" appear, I believe the reference to "modf" in the > > first paragraph (C99) should instead be "modff". OK. > > 2022-04-11 Paul A. Clarke > > > > gcc > > * doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins): Correct reference to 'modff'. > > --- > > gcc/doc/extend.texi | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi > > index e10b10bc1f14..05c99f4284a6 100644 > > --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi > > +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi > > @@ -13460,7 +13460,7 @@ There are also built-in versions of the ISO C99 functions > > @code{expl}, @code{fabsf}, @code{fabsl}, @code{floorf}, @code{floorl}, > > @code{fmodf}, @code{fmodl}, @code{frexpf}, @code{frexpl}, @code{ldexpf}, > > @code{ldexpl}, @code{log10f}, @code{log10l}, @code{logf}, @code{logl}, > > -@code{modfl}, @code{modf}, @code{powf}, @code{powl}, @code{sinf}, > > +@code{modfl}, @code{modff}, @code{powf}, @code{powl}, @code{sinf}, > > @code{sinhf}, @code{sinhl}, @code{sinl}, @code{sqrtf}, @code{sqrtl}, > > @code{tanf}, @code{tanhf}, @code{tanhl} and @code{tanl} > > that are recognized in any mode since ISO C90 reserves these names for > > --