On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> * doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical
> errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and
> paragraphs.
There are three questions (and to some extent suggestions) on this
patch and the text covered by it that I'm wondering about. Hope
that's still fine after all the time.
I'm happy to make any changes myself, but am looking at your expertise.
Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
-with dynamically allocated memory.
+with dynamically-allocated memory.
Why the dash here? Is this because it's seens as a technical term?
(Usually it's the Germans with those absolutelylongandnonbreaking words.
;-)
-(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy
+(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class's copy
constructor.
"class's" twists my brain a little. What do you think about using
"in a copy constructor of a derived class" instead?
When profile feedback is available (see @option{-fprofile-generate}) the actual
-recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function will recurse via
-given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expression
-whose probability exceeds given threshold (in percents). The default value is
-10.
+recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function recurses via a
+given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expressions
+whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
This predates your patch, but should this be "the probability"?
Gerald
