* [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).