On 3/12/23 01:12, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 12 March 2023 03:47:08 CET, Sean Bright via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
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.
I'd prefer the singular but defer to the documentation maintainers.
I think the patch is fine as posted, with "accesses/are". Sean, do you
need somebody to push this for you?
-Sandra
