On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 08:53 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> OK with:
>
> +Pragmas registered with @code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion} or
> +@code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion_and_data} are supporting
> +preprocessor expansions. For an example of using such a pragma:
>
> s/are supporting/sup
OK with:
+Pragmas registered with @code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion} or
+@code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion_and_data} are supporting
+preprocessor expansions. For an example of using such a pragma:
s/are supporting/support/
s/For an example of using such a pragma/For example/
Diego.
Hello Diego & all,
Here is a slightly improved patch to follow Diego's comments on
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00863.html
(since Diego improved the wording extracted from comments
in gcc/plugin.def I am also patching the comments in that file).
### gcc/Changelog entry
2014-03-
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> I am pinging again this documentation patch
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
>> (pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.h
On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I am pinging again this documentation patch
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
> (pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.html on
> febµ.17th 2014)
and also pinged at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
