On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:23:48AM -0500, Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches wrote: > In commit a2a919aa501e3 (2003), built-ins for modf and modff were added. > In extend.texi, section "Other Builtins", "modf" was added to the paragraph > "There are also built-in versions of the ISO C99 functions [...]" and > "modf" was also added to the paragraph "The ISO C90 functions [...]". > "modff" was not added to either paragraph. > > Based on the context clues about where "modfl" and other similar function > pairs like "powf/powl" appear, I believe the reference to "modf" in the > first paragraph (C99) should instead be "modff". > > 2022-04-11 Paul A. Clarke <p...@us.ibm.com> > > gcc > * doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins): Correct reference to 'modff'. > --- > gcc/doc/extend.texi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi > index e10b10bc1f14..05c99f4284a6 100644 > --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi > @@ -13460,7 +13460,7 @@ There are also built-in versions of the ISO C99 > functions > @code{expl}, @code{fabsf}, @code{fabsl}, @code{floorf}, @code{floorl}, > @code{fmodf}, @code{fmodl}, @code{frexpf}, @code{frexpl}, @code{ldexpf}, > @code{ldexpl}, @code{log10f}, @code{log10l}, @code{logf}, @code{logl}, > -@code{modfl}, @code{modf}, @code{powf}, @code{powl}, @code{sinf}, > +@code{modfl}, @code{modff}, @code{powf}, @code{powl}, @code{sinf}, > @code{sinhf}, @code{sinhl}, @code{sinl}, @code{sqrtf}, @code{sqrtl}, > @code{tanf}, @code{tanhf}, @code{tanhl} and @code{tanl} > that are recognized in any mode since ISO C90 reserves these names for > --
PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in extend.texi
Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:01:39 -0700
- [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in extend.tex... Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches
- PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in ... Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' refer... Richard Biener via Gcc-patches