[PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs.
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
Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs.
On 3/11/2023 6:39 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 11 March 2023 18:33:46 CET, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches
> 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
Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs.
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
>> 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
>>>> 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
