This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [doc, committed] copy-edit documentation for -fisolate-erroneous-paths-*


On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> On Saturday 2015-01-03 17:59, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > * most places in the manual use "null" or more rarely "@code{NULL}" 
> > rather than "NULL"
> 
> So, should this be documented in gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html?

Expanding / revising where it says "NULL should be written as 
<code>@code{NULL}</code>" (to exclude use of plain un-marked-up NULL)?

(I think natural logic is something like: "null" as an adjective, e.g. 
"null pointer", @code{NULL} (or e.g. @code{NULL_TREE}) if naming a 
specific value, no use of un-marked-up "NULL".  But I'm not sure there's a 
real distinction between e.g. "the value is non-null" and "the value is 
non-@code{NULL}", so that doesn't actually say which to use in such 
cases.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]