From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-143412-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25633 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2008 22:32:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 25625 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2008 22:32:57 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from us01smtp2.synopsys.com (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.80)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:32:37 +0000
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) 	by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80474F470; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27260; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) 	by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id m0AMWY70017500; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:32:34 -0800
Received: (from jbuck@localhost) 	by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m0AMWSoJ017499; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:32:28 -0800
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:32:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs
Message-ID: <20080110223228.GC11942@synopsys.com>
References: <20080108184137.5ec72074@wabash.artheist.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801102229130.4030@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801102229130.4030@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

>   In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several 
>   existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code.
> 
> Is this sentence okay?  I'm not a native speaker, so I might miss a
> nuance here.

No, it's badly worded, but fixing it seems to be more than a matter of
rephrasing.  It's basically saying that existing warning flags will
produce warnings, but I'd prefer to see something more specific.
That is, what kinds of additional warnings should be expected?