From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8009 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2004 15:39:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7921 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2004 15:38:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO s-utl01-lopop.stsn.com) (217.118.122.13) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 15:38:53 -0000 Received: from lopop.smtp.stsn.com ([127.0.0.1]) by s-utl01-lopop.stsn.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2004112215385214894 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:38:52 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.27.171.206]) by lopop.smtp.stsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: <41A2080D.2000300@gnat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:58:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Schwab CC: Jamie Lokier , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Documentation bug for __builtin_choose_expr References: <20041122042652.GA26998@mail.shareable.org> <20041122131946.GA2893@mail.shareable.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2004 15:38:51.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E0346E0:01C4D0A9] X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jamie Lokier writes: > > >> This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C, >> except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by >> promotion rules. Unlike most built-in functions, but like the >> `? :' operator, this built-in function does not evaluate the >> expression that was not chosen. For example, if CONST_EXP >> evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has >> side-effects. > > > IMHO, "but like the `? :' operator" could be removed without any negative > impact (anyone who doesn't know how the ?: operator should not look at > builtins either :-) ). Why remove it? It only makes things clearer ... Documentation is about making things clear, we are not writing a language standard here, where redundancy is to be avoided. Perhaps it would make things clearer to put this parenthetical remark in parentheses > > Andreas. > >> This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C, >> except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by >> promotion rules. Unlike most built-in functions (but like the >> `? :' operator), this built-in function does not evaluate the >> expression that was not chosen. For example, if CONST_EXP >> evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has >> side-effects.