Hi Sandra,
> On 01/16/2017 03:54 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Sandra,
>>
>>> On 01/13/2017 05:59 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>>> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>>> @@ -26391,6 +26391,13 @@ be as many clauses as you need. This ma
>>>>
>>>> @end table
>>>>
>>>> +The switch matching text @code{S} in a %@{@code{S}@},
>>>> +%@{@code{S}:@code{X}@} or similar construct can use a backslash to
>>>> +ignore the special meaning of the character following it, thus allowing
>>>> +literal matching of a character that is otherwise specially treated.
>>>> +For example, %@{@code{std=iso9899\:1999}:@code{X}@} would substitute
>>>> +@code{X} if the @option{-std=iso9899:1999} option were given.
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I see this "%@{@code{..." markup appears in the paragraph just before this,
>>> but it's wrong. The whole thing needs to be wrapped in @samp and the
>>> nested @codes removed, like
>>>
>>> s/%@{@code{S}:@code{X}@}/@samp{%@{S:X@}}/
>>>
>>> etc.
>>
>> I see, fixed. I assume this applies to the uses inside @item, too, and
>> irrespective of %{S:X} or %{S}?
>
> It looked to me like this table environment uses
>
> @table @code
>
> so there should be no need for additional @code markup within the @item
> tags.
>
> I'm not asking you to repair existing bad markup elsewhere in this section,
> just not propagate it to your new paragraph of text.
perhaps not, but it makes sense to fix this while I'm at this section.
There are still more instances of the same problems (e.g. in the table
listing the spec functions), but I haven't touched those.
Should be all in the revised patch just submitted.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
