docs: Fix double 'See' in zero-length-bounds docs.

  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(-)

--
2.34.1
  

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,
  

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
  

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.

thanks,
  

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
  

On 3/12/2023 3:32 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> 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

Yes I do. I apologize for not mentioning up front that I lacked write
access.

Kind regards,
Sean