On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:10:02PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> > >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several > >>> existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code. > >>> > >>> Is this sentence okay? I'm not a native speaker, so I might miss a > >>> nuance here. > >> > >> No, it's badly worded, but fixing it seems to be more than a matter of > >> rephrasing. It's basically saying that existing warning flags will > >> produce warnings, but I'd prefer to see something more specific. > > > > ^- s/warnings/additional warnings/, or maybe "fewer false > > positives" as well. > > " In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allow > improvements in the ability of several existing warnings to > spot problematic code" ?
I would start with Dave's fix, and then see if we can improve it somehow. Presumably this is talking about Manuel's work, at least in part?
