Re: other/9813: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

Re: other/9813: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

[reichelt]

Synopsis: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: reichelt
State-Changed-When: Fri Mar 21 15:16:26 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Fixed (3.2 branch, 3.3 branch and mainline), see
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-03/msg01888.html

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9813

Re: other/9813: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

[reichelt]

Synopsis: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->reichelt
Responsible-Changed-By: reichelt
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Mar 21 08:49:03 2003
Responsible-Changed-Why:
    Mine.
State-Changed-From-To: feedback->analyzed
State-Changed-By: reichelt
State-Changed-When: Fri Mar 21 08:49:03 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Since gcc 3.2.3 is approaching, I'll take over to get the patch in.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9813

Re: other/9813: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

[bangerth]

Synopsis: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Sat Mar 15 18:59:55 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Would you mind creating a patch against the present documentation?
    
    Thanks
      Wolfgang

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9813

other/9813: misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node

[Matthias Klose]

>Number:         9813
>Category:       other
>Synopsis:       misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Feb 23 07:46:00 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>
>Release:        3.2.2 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
>Organization:
The Debian Project
>Environment:
System: Debian GNU/Linux (unstable)
Architecture: i686
host: i386-linux
>Description:
[ Reported to the Debian BTS as report #179363.
  Please CC 179363@bugs.debian.org on replies.
  Log of report can be found at http://bugs.debian.org/179363 ]
	

same on the 3.3 branch.

The node (gcc-3.2.info.gz)"Constructing Calls", in "C Extensions",
has this paragraph at the end:

     The reason for using names that start with underscores for the local
  variables is to avoid conflicts with variable names that occur within
  the expressions that are substituted for `a' and `b'.  Eventually we
  hope to design a new form of declaration syntax that allows you to
  declare variables whose scopes start only after their initializers;
  this will be a more reliable way to prevent such conflicts.

This does not make sense in that node, which doesn't describe the
use of any local variables, with or without underscores.  The paragraph
seems to belong somewhere in the next node, "Typeof", which contains
this example:

     #define max(a,b) \
       ({ typeof (a) _a = (a); \
           typeof (b) _b = (b); \
         _a > _b ? _a : _b; })


>How-To-Repeat:
	
>Fix:
	
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: