Re: PING [PATCH] Fix 'modff' reference in extend.texi
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:02 PM Paul A. Clarke via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> 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".
OK.
> > 2022-04-11 Paul A. Clarke
> >
> > 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
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
>
> 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
> --
