PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in extend.texi

["Paul A. Clarke" <pc@us.ibm.com>]

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".
> 
> 2022-04-11  Paul A. Clarke  <pc@us.ibm.com>
> 
> 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
> --