On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:

> Hi, Joseph and Nathan,
> 
> Could you please review the C and C++ FE parts of the patch?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599901.html

I think some work is still needed on the diagnostic wording.

> +  "%qE attribute may not be specified for a non array field",

"non-array" not "non array".

> +       "not supported with a ISO C before C99", name);

"a ISO C" is not proper usage.  I think something like "by ISO C before 
C99" would be better.  Likewise "a ISO C++".

"!flag_isoc99" is more usual than "flag_isoc99 == 0".

> +       "not supported with a GNU extension GNU89", name);

"a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think 
you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an 
individual feature.

In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members.  So I'd expect 
them to have exactly the same semantics as in C99, so disallowing a 
particular feature for gnu89 here seems suspect.

In the manual, any literal code should be enclosed in @code{} or @samp{}.  
That replaces the use of ASCII quotes "" that you currently have in the 
documentation (that should never be used outside of @code, @samp and 
similar).

> +When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length 
> array

And @option{} should be used around "-std=gnu89" here (except as noted 
above, I think it's suspect to disallow parts of this feature for gnu89).

> +language. FOR ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the 
> flexible

"FOR" should be "For".

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Reply via email to