Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> Adjective phrases immediately before the noun they modify are
> hyphenated. This is the same reason why we write "floating-point
> arithmetic" but "floating point", unhyphenated, as a noun.
Thanks for the explanation / background, Sandra.
Below is the patch I just committed based on your other feedback.
Gerald
2016-09-20 Gerald Pfeifer
* doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Simplify language.
(Optimize Options): Complete sentence.
Index: doc/invoke.texi
===
--- doc/invoke.texi (revision 240270)
+++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -3752,8 +3752,8 @@
@code{register}.
@item
-(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class's copy
-constructor.
+(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in the copy constructor
+of a derived class.
@end itemize
@@ -9128,9 +9128,9 @@
optimizers.
When profile feedback is available (see @option{-fprofile-generate}) the actual
-recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function recurses via a
-given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expressions
-whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
+recursion depth can be guessed from the probability that function recurses
+via a given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call
+expressions whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
The default value is 10.
@item early-inlining-insns
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> I noticed you changed return-value and return-type to their >> variants without a dash. Would it make sense to add the >> following to https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ? > Perhaps add here that "return type" and "return value" are nouns. It > would be correct to hyphenate them if they were used as adjective > phrases immediately before a noun (although I'm having trouble coming > up with an example of such usage that would make any sense). Thanks, Sandra. I have committed the updated patch below which makes this explicit. Gerald Index: codingconventions.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/codingconventions.html,v retrieving revision 1.76 diff -u -r1.76 codingconventions.html --- codingconventions.html 16 Aug 2016 09:24:33 - 1.76 +++ codingconventions.html 18 Sep 2016 13:49:47 - @@ -457,6 +457,11 @@ +"return type" (noun), "return value" (noun) +"return-type", "return-value" + + + "run time" (noun), "run-time" (adjective); the time at which the program is run "runtime"
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On 09/02/2016 12:17 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
* doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical
errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and
paragraphs.
There are three questions (and to some extent suggestions) on this
patch and the text covered by it that I'm wondering about. Hope
that's still fine after all the time.
I'm happy to make any changes myself, but am looking at your expertise.
Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
-with dynamically allocated memory.
+with dynamically-allocated memory.
Why the dash here? Is this because it's seens as a technical term?
(Usually it's the Germans with those absolutelylongandnonbreaking words.
;-)
-(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy
+(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class's copy
constructor.
"class's" twists my brain a little. What do you think about using
"in a copy constructor of a derived class" instead?
When profile feedback is available (see @option{-fprofile-generate}) the
actual
-recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function will recurse via
-given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expression
-whose probability exceeds given threshold (in percents). The default value is
-10.
+recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function recurses via a
+given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expressions
+whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
This predates your patch, but should this be "the probability"?
Gerald
--D6BB43F4FA.1472886072/ainaz.pair.com--
ReSent-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 09:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
ReSent-From: Gerald Pfeifer
ReSent-To: Sandra Loosemore
ReSent-Subject: Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
ReSent-Message-ID:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
* doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical
errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and
paragraphs.
There are three questions (and to some extent suggestions) on this
patch and the text covered by it that I'm wondering about. Hope
that's still fine after all the time.
I'm happy to make any changes myself, but am looking at your expertise.
Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
-with dynamically allocated memory.
+with dynamically-allocated memory.
Why the dash here? Is this because it's seens as a technical term?
(Usually it's the Germans with those absolutelylongandnonbreaking words.
;-)
Adjective phrases immediately before the noun they modify are
hyphenated. This is the same reason why we write "floating-point
arithmetic" but "floating point", unhyphenated, as a noun.
-(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy
+(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class's copy
constructor.
"class's" twists my brain a little. What do you think about using
"in a copy constructor of a derived class" instead?
Yes, that's better.
When profile feedback is available (see @option{-fprofile-generate}) the
actual
-recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function will recurse via
-given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expression
-whose probability exceeds given threshold (in percents). The default value is
-10.
+recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function recurses via a
+given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expressions
+whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
This predates your patch, but should this be "the probability"?
Yes, please.
-Sandra
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On 09/01/2016 01:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote: * doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and paragraphs. I noticed you changed return-value and return-type to their variants without a dash. Would it make sense to add the following to https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ? Gerald Index: codingconventions.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/codingconventions.html,v retrieving revision 1.76 diff -u -r1.76 codingconventions.html --- codingconventions.html 16 Aug 2016 09:24:33 - 1.76 +++ codingconventions.html 1 Sep 2016 19:02:58 - @@ -457,6 +457,11 @@ +"return type", "return value" +"return-type", "return-value" + + + "run time" (noun), "run-time" (adjective); the time at which the program is run "runtime" Perhaps add here that "return type" and "return value" are nouns. It would be correct to hyphenate them if they were used as adjective phrases immediately before a noun (although I'm having trouble coming up with an example of such usage that would make any sense). -Sandra
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On 09/01/2016 06:22 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Hi Sandra, On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote: I've had this largish pile of random copy-edits to invoke.texi left over from my previous passes through that file earlier this year. that was an amazing amount of changes; I admire your patience and thoroughness! I'll wait a few days before committing to give folks a chance to object and/or volunteer to review the whole patch. ;-) That was more like a few years, but I did go through the patch. :-o On thing I noticed is that you converted "nop" to "NOP", is that a standard you generally suggest to establish? If so, I've got a couple more cases. Yes, I think "NOP" is more readable than "nop" in running text. (It's also how Wikipedia capitalizes the term). Let me know, and I'll apply this patch. Looks good to me. -Sandra
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> * doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical
> errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and
> paragraphs.
There are three questions (and to some extent suggestions) on this
patch and the text covered by it that I'm wondering about. Hope
that's still fine after all the time.
I'm happy to make any changes myself, but am looking at your expertise.
Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
-with dynamically allocated memory.
+with dynamically-allocated memory.
Why the dash here? Is this because it's seens as a technical term?
(Usually it's the Germans with those absolutelylongandnonbreaking words.
;-)
-(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy
+(C++ only) A base class is not initialized in a derived class's copy
constructor.
"class's" twists my brain a little. What do you think about using
"in a copy constructor of a derived class" instead?
When profile feedback is available (see @option{-fprofile-generate}) the actual
-recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function will recurse via
-given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expression
-whose probability exceeds given threshold (in percents). The default value is
-10.
+recursion depth can be guessed from probability that function recurses via a
+given call expression. This parameter limits inlining only to call expressions
+whose probability exceeds the given threshold (in percents).
This predates your patch, but should this be "the probability"?
Gerald
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > * doc/invoke.texi: Fix numerous typos and punctuation/grammatical > errors throughout the file. Re-word some awkward sentences and > paragraphs. I noticed you changed return-value and return-type to their variants without a dash. Would it make sense to add the following to https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ? Gerald Index: codingconventions.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/codingconventions.html,v retrieving revision 1.76 diff -u -r1.76 codingconventions.html --- codingconventions.html 16 Aug 2016 09:24:33 - 1.76 +++ codingconventions.html 1 Sep 2016 19:02:58 - @@ -457,6 +457,11 @@ +"return type", "return value" +"return-type", "return-value" + + + "run time" (noun), "run-time" (adjective); the time at which the program is run "runtime"
Re: [PATCH, docs] invoke.texi: random copy-editing
Hi Sandra,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> I've had this largish pile of random copy-edits to invoke.texi left over
> from my previous passes through that file earlier this year.
that was an amazing amount of changes; I admire your patience and
thoroughness!
> I'll wait a few days before committing to give folks a chance to object
> and/or volunteer to review the whole patch. ;-)
That was more like a few years, but I did go through the patch. :-o
On thing I noticed is that you converted "nop" to "NOP", is that
a standard you generally suggest to establish? If so, I've got a
couple more cases.
Let me know, and I'll apply this patch.
Gerald
2016-09-01 Gerald Pfeifer
* doc/invoke.texi (SPU Options): nops -> NOPs.
(x86 Options): Ditto.
Index: doc/invoke.texi
===
--- doc/invoke.texi (revision 239904)
+++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -22807,16 +22807,16 @@
@item -mdual-nops
@itemx -mdual-nops=@var{n}
@opindex mdual-nops
-By default, GCC inserts nops to increase dual issue when it expects
+By default, GCC inserts NOPs to increase dual issue when it expects
it to increase performance. @var{n} can be a value from 0 to 10. A
-smaller @var{n} inserts fewer nops. 10 is the default, 0 is the
+smaller @var{n} inserts fewer NOPs. 10 is the default, 0 is the
same as @option{-mno-dual-nops}. Disabled with @option{-Os}.
@item -mhint-max-nops=@var{n}
@opindex mhint-max-nops
-Maximum number of nops to insert for a branch hint. A branch hint must
+Maximum number of NOPs to insert for a branch hint. A branch hint must
be at least 8 instructions away from the branch it is affecting. GCC
-inserts up to @var{n} nops to enforce this, otherwise it does not
+inserts up to @var{n} NOPs to enforce this, otherwise it does not
generate the branch hint.
@item -mhint-max-distance=@var{n}
@@ -24601,7 +24601,7 @@
@itemx -mno-nop-mcount
@opindex mnop-mcount
If profiling is active (@option{-pg}), generate the calls to
-the profiling functions as nops. This is useful when they
+the profiling functions as NOPs. This is useful when they
should be patched in later dynamically. This is likely only
useful together with @option{-mrecord-mcount}.
