On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:11:37AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Dez 15 2016, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > --- gcc/doc/extend.texi.jj 2016-12-14 20:28:12.000000000 +0100
> > +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi 2016-12-15 10:56:14.470702563 +0100
> > @@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ implements conversions between @code{__f
> > calls.
> >
> > It is recommended that portable code use the @code{_Float16} type defined
> > -by ISO/IEC TS 18661-3:2015 (@xref{Floating Types}).
> > +by ISO/IEC TS 18661-3:2015. (@xref{Floating Types}.)
>
> I think the parens should be removed.
We have it in other spots:
extend.texi-stores it into the union as the integer @code{i}, since it is
extend.texi:an integer. (@xref{Cast to Union}.)
extend.texi-
extend.texi-yields an lvalue, not an rvalue like true casts do.
extend.texi:(@xref{Compound Literals}.)
extend.texi-
invoke.texi-which applies only to functions that are declared using the
@code{dllexport}
invoke.texi:attribute or declspec (@xref{Function Attributes,,Declaring
Attributes of
invoke.texi-Functions}.)
invoke.texi-needs for some languages.
invoke.texi:(@xref{Interface,,Interfacing to GCC Output,gccint,GNU Compiler
invoke.texi-Collection (GCC) Internals},
invoke.texi-for more discussion of @file{libgcc.a}.)
The last one looks correct to me, the third one looks weird (the dot inside
of (), but no dot before (.
So, shall we change also the first 3?
Jakub
