On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> I noticed you are using <q>...</q>, as in <q><code>e</code></q>,
>> which we usually don't. Why that?
> My impression was that a one-letter <code> didn't stand out enough and
> looked rather odd; if you think it improves consistency or readability,
> feel free to change it.
That's actually a good point and a clever idea to use <q>.
> I intent to commit the attached patch to document two new warning flags,
> which were recently added. (Suggested in ISO/IEC Technical Report 24772
> "Guidance for Avoiding Vulnerabilities through Language Selection and
> Use".)
I committed a small follow up patch to this (below).
One question: in general we are using the term "command-line option".
You are introducing two uses of "flag", and the two existing uses of
that are also in the Fortran section. Is this Fortran terminology or
would it be fine to make this more consistent?
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.55
diff -u -3 -p -r1.55 changes.html
--- changes.html 11 Nov 2012 09:22:18 -0000 1.55
+++ changes.html 12 Nov 2012 15:17:53 -0000
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ B b(42); // OK
warnings are issued when comparing <code>REAL</code> or
<code>COMPLEX</code> types for equality and inequality; consider replacing
<code>a == b</code> by <code>abs(a−b) < eps</code> with a suitable
- <code>eps</code>. The <code>-Wcompare-reals</code> flag is enabled by
+ <code>eps</code>. <code>-Wcompare-reals</code> is enabled by
<code>-Wextra</code>.</li>
<li>The <a
