On 01/05/2015 03:57 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
@file is used for file names.
For standard headers, the use of @code{<header.h>} (inttypes.h and
limits.h, in this patch) is deliberate, reflecting that the C standard
does not require headers to correspond to files and that the use of files
to implement those headers is an implementation detail.
Oh, thanks! I didn't realize that was a deliberate convention. I've
reverted the two offending patch hunks.
(I'm actually surprised that anybody even bothered to look at the
patch.... If the doc maintainers would prefer me to post these kinds of
copy-editing changes for review rather than just commit them, please let
me know.)
-Sandra
2015-01-05 Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com>
Revert parts of r219199.
gcc/
* doc/invoke.texi ([-Wliteral-suffix]): Restore markup on
<inttypes.h>.
([-Wtraditional]): Restore markup on <limits.h>.
Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 219199)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -2628,8 +2628,7 @@ by @option{-Wall}.
Warn when a string or character literal is followed by a ud-suffix which does
not begin with an underscore. As a conforming extension, GCC treats such
suffixes as separate preprocessing tokens in order to maintain backwards
-compatibility with code that uses formatting macros from
-the standard header file @file{inttypes.h}.
+compatibility with code that uses formatting macros from @code{<inttypes.h>}.
For example:
@smallexample
@@ -4417,8 +4416,7 @@ The unary plus operator.
The @samp{U} integer constant suffix, or the @samp{F} or @samp{L} floating-point
constant suffixes. (Traditional C does support the @samp{L} suffix on integer
constants.) Note, these suffixes appear in macros defined in the system
-headers of most modern systems, e.g.@: the @samp{_MIN}/@samp{_MAX} macros in
-@file{limits.h}.
+headers of most modern systems, e.g.@: the @samp{_MIN}/@samp{_MAX} macros in @code{<limits.h>}.
Use of these macros in user code might normally lead to spurious
warnings, however GCC's integrated preprocessor has enough context to
avoid warning in these cases.
