On 3/11/2023 6:39 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 11 March 2023 18:33:46 CET, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This fixes a minor issue where the zero-length-bound docs read "See See
>> Zero Length."
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Remove errant 'See'
>> before @xref.
>> ---
>> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>> index 3a6a97862b0..174d160dd6c 100644
>> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>> @@ -8345,7 +8345,7 @@ conversions the warnings
>> @option{-Wno-int-to-pointer-cast} and
>> @item -Wzero-length-bounds
>> Warn about accesses to elements of zero-length array members that might
>> overlap other members of the same object. Declaring interior zero-length
>> -arrays is discouraged because accesses to them are undefined. See
>> +arrays is discouraged because accesses to them are undefined.
>> @xref{Zero Length}.
>
> I'm not a native speaker, but wouldn't it be better to talk about singular
> access, i.e. s/accesses/access/ in both cases?
>
> thanks,
As a native speaker it does not feel ergonomic to use 'accesses' in this
context but it also does not feel objectively wrong. I'm happy to
provide a follow-up patch if you feel strongly about it.
Kind regards,
Sean
