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}?
> I also suggest using the present tense here instead of the subjunctive...
>
> s/would substitute/substitutes/
> s/were given/is given/
Makes sense: fixed both in gcc.c and invoke.texi.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
