Re: [PATCH] doc fix for c/71560 - union compound literal initializes wrong union field

[Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>]

Ping.  The updated patch at the link below corrects the issues
with the tags pointed out by Sandra in her review.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00350.html

Thanks
Martin

On 07/07/2016 01:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/03/2016 05:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > On 07/01/2016 05:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > The bug points out a couple of conformance problems in the GCC
> > > manual where is discusses compound literals and casts to unions
> > > and says that a compound literal is equivalent to a cast.  It
> > > isn't because a compound literal is an lvalue but a cast yields
> > > an rvalue.
> > >
> > > The attached patch corrects this error and adds some clarifying
> > > text to illustrate the differences.
> >
> > This looks OK modulo some markup problems.
>
> Thanks for the careful review!  After reading the descriptions
> in the Texinfo manual I agree that the @code command is more
> appropriate here than either @var or @samp and I've made the
> changes in the updated patch.
>
> I quickly reviewed the rest of the file for other uses of these
> commands and they appear to be just as inconsistent with the
> Texinfo recommendation as were mine.  They don't appear to make
> a huge difference in the formatting of the HTML or PDF but it
> would be nice to fix those up as well, if only for consistency.
>
> > I think it would be more appropriate to use @code rather than @samp
> > markup throughout this discussion, since foo, char*, etc are "entire
> > syntactic tokens", per the texinfo manual.
>
> Attached is the updated patch.
>
> Martin