On 1/28/2012 12:05 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I'm specifically asking for review of this patch by one of the docs
maintainers before checking it in, since it seems not everyone agrees
that these copyediting patches qualify as "obvious". In this particular
chunk, I had to make some judgment call
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 01/29/2012 07:31 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >
> > > 2012-01-28 Sandra Loosemore
> > >
> > > gcc/
> > > * doc/invoke.texi: Make usage of "compile time" and
> > > "run time"/"runtime" consis
On 01/29/2012 07:31 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
2012-01-28 Sandra Loosemore
gcc/
* doc/invoke.texi: Make usage of "compile time" and
"run time"/"runtime" consistent throughout the file.
OK. Could you post a patch to coding
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> 2012-01-28 Sandra Loosemore
>
> gcc/
> * doc/invoke.texi: Make usage of "compile time" and
> "run time"/"runtime" consistent throughout the file.
OK. Could you post a patch to codingconventions.html to document the
conventions
I'm specifically asking for review of this patch by one of the docs
maintainers before checking it in, since it seems not everyone agrees
that these copyediting patches qualify as "obvious". In this particular
chunk, I had to make some judgment calls, too.
We usually use "compile time", "link
