This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING] typo patch
Hello Gerald, all,
* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:12:35AM CET:
>
> Some comments on those pieces I did not commit:
>
> - Is "inferable" really more correct than "inferrable"?
Not sure; m-w.com and a couple of English-German dictionaries list only
the former. I can leave it out, it's certainly not a serious typo.
(Note that it's "inferable", but "inferred", "inferring").
> - In "logical @code{and} and logical @code{or}" I am not sure whether
> the markup really is right, or whether ``and''/``or'' might be better.
Yes, quotation marks seem better to me, too. Thanks.
> My recommendation is to consider the two issues above and resend the
> remainders of your original large patch piecewise, one per file, so
> that the appropriate maintainers can look into/discuss them more easily.
Will do. I have checked a few more manuals, so as replies to this
message I'll send about a half-dozen typo patches, most very small.
So, I know about Cc:ing Fortran patches to fortran@, Java to
java-patches@, but what about libgomp/ and libiberty/? I assume
neither have corresponding lists, right?
Further, in the ADDPATCH line, is there any formalism for the tags?
Would `fortran, documentation' be appropriate? Should Java-related
patches even be added to the tracker (asking because there currently
seem to be no patches for those on the tracker)?
> (Large patches such as this one have the tendency to scare away
> potential reviewers. :-/)
Thanks for tackling this anyway.
Cheers,
Ralf