This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [doc, committed] copy-edit documentation for -fisolate-erroneous-paths-*
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:12:36 +0000
- Subject: Re: [doc, committed] copy-edit documentation for -fisolate-erroneous-paths-*
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54A8907C dot 8040809 at codesourcery dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501190830180 dot 2527 at tuna dot site>
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