This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] Typo and grammatical fixes in intrinsic.texi (repost)
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:45:03PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:46:48PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> >>:ADDPATCH fortran:
> >>In looking over Daniel Franke's recent intrinsic.texi patch, I noticed a
> >>few typos and small errors that were in the original file.
> >Just to be clear, do I apply Daniel's patch then apply your
> >patch? Or, is your patch a composite of Daniel's patch and
> >your corrections?
> Neither; this patch does not contain Daniel's patch, and it would apply
> to the current (unpatched) version of the file. (Thus, it does not
> contain my suggested corrections to Daniel's patch that I posted earlier.)
> Hmm -- I had thought that Daniel's patch would still apply correctly on
> top of mine, but I now see that it doesn't. Perhaps it would be better
> to wait until he produces a revised/corrected version of his patch and
> then I can do an updated version of this one to apply after it.
> Or, alternately, if it would be easier, I could produce a composite
> patch that includes Daniel's patch, my corrections to his patch, and
> this patch of corrections to the original file.
If you already have a composite patch, then that works for me.
The ChangeLog entry will of course list both Daniel and you.
Otherwise, I won't get through testing and fixing Daniel's
patch until tomorrow.
> >For the more complicated intrinsics such as TRANSFER and ASSOCIATED,
> >we may want to give more than one example; whereas the simpler intrinsics
> >such as SIN and RANDOM_SEED do not need elaborate examples.
> Ok. I can
I need to rethink this. I just realized the you were asking about
the Syntax: field. I thought you were asking about the small example
codes. In fact, if a short working example is provided for each intrinsic,
I think we can eliminate the Syntax: field.