On 21 December 2011 02:00, Jim Avera wrote:
> Ok, here is a patch which improves the example:
>
> --- gcc/doc/extend.texi.ORIG 2011-12-20 17:35:32.236578828 -0800
> +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi 2011-12-20 17:37:10.460583316 -0800
> @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@
>
> @smallexample
> if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1))
> - error ();
> + ptr->do_something();
> @end smallexample
>
> @noindent
In order to follow the GCC coding style (a space between the function
name and opening parenthesis) and to match the first example for
__builtin_expect, I propose this patch instead:
Index: extend.texi
===================================================================
--- extend.texi (revision 182452)
+++ extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ expressions for @var{exp}, you should us
@smallexample
if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1))
- error ();
+ ptr->foo ();
@end smallexample
@noindent
I've CC'd the gcc-patches list, which is where patches should be sent
for review, and included a ChangeLog entry:
2011-12-21 Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]>
Jim Avera <[email protected]>
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_expect): Improve example.
Can I get approval to check this in to trunk?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]>
> To: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of
> __builtin_expect
>
> On 20 December 2011 12:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> The point of the example is that you cannot write
>>
>> if (__builtin_expect (ptr, 1))
>> error ();
>>
>> so the "!= NULL" is important here. But you are right that
>> "error ()" is a bit unexpected; care to send a patch that changes
>> it to e.g. "do_something ()"?
>
> or even ptr->do_something() since that would depend on the value of ptr
