| Message ID | 5686D3F8.3010205@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 01/01/2016 12:31 PM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > Hello, > I noticed tiny typos in the docs. > (CC me with replies, please, as I'm not reading the list.) This patch is fine with an appropriate ChangeLog entry. Generally, fixing typos in documentation or comments falls under the "obvious patch" rule, so it doesn't need explicit approval anyway. -Sandra
On 01/02/2016 12:13 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 01/01/2016 12:31 PM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: >> I noticed tiny typos in the docs. >> (CC me with replies, please, as I'm not reading the list.) > > This patch is fine with an appropriate ChangeLog entry. Generally, > fixing typos in documentation or comments falls under the "obvious > patch" rule, so it doesn't need explicit approval anyway. What about using the simple line that's in the subject? I didn't realize even such tiny changes need a changelog entry. (I'm used to handling such information by version control instead.) Vladimir
On 01/02/2016 01:37 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 01/02/2016 12:13 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> On 01/01/2016 12:31 PM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: >>> I noticed tiny typos in the docs. >>> (CC me with replies, please, as I'm not reading the list.) >> >> This patch is fine with an appropriate ChangeLog entry. Generally, >> fixing typos in documentation or comments falls under the "obvious >> patch" rule, so it doesn't need explicit approval anyway. > > What about using the simple line that's in the subject? > > I didn't realize even such tiny changes need a changelog entry. > (I'm used to handling such information by version control instead.) ChangeLogs are required by the GNU coding standards. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Change-Logs If you don't want to bother with that, or don't have commit access to the repository, I'll check in the patch on your behalf; just let me know if you want me to do that. -Sandra
On 01/03/2016 01:08 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > If you don't want to bother with that, or don't have commit access to > the repository, I'll check in the patch on your behalf; just let me > know if you want me to do that. I do *not* have commit access; I should've stressed that. I'll be glad if someone fixes these typos, and I don't care for attribution. BTW, I read in the standards: > There’s no technical need to make change log entries for > documentation files. Vladimir
On 01/03/2016 01:00 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 01/03/2016 01:08 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> If you don't want to bother with that, or don't have commit access to >> the repository, I'll check in the patch on your behalf; just let me >> know if you want me to do that. > > I do *not* have commit access; I should've stressed that. I'll be glad > if someone fixes these typos, and I don't care for attribution. No problem; I've checked in the patch. Thank you for spotting those mistakes. > BTW, I read in the standards: >> There’s no technical need to make change log entries for >> documentation files. There may not be any technical need for it, but we do it anyway. ;-) -Sandra
On 01/04/2016 03:04 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > No problem; I've checked in the patch. Thank you for spotting those > mistakes. Thank you, too! > There may not be any technical need for it, but we do it anyway. ;-) OK :-) Vladimir
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index b85f9b5..3f91d1a 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@ -20374,7 +20374,7 @@ Newton-Raphson steps to increase precision instead of doing a divide or square root and divide for floating-point arguments. You should use the @option{-ffast-math} option when using @option{-mrecip} (or at least @option{-funsafe-math-optimizations}, -@option{-finite-math-only}, @option{-freciprocal-math} and +@option{-ffinite-math-only}, @option{-freciprocal-math} and @option{-fno-trapping-math}). Note that while the throughput of the sequence is generally higher than the throughput of the non-reciprocal
Hello, I noticed tiny typos in the docs. (CC me with replies, please, as I'm not reading the list.) Vladimir From 707de44fdb74ecfbc7120e2d6b5b9fdb4d281855 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Vladim=C3=ADr=20=C4=8Cun=C3=A1t?= <vcunat@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 20:10:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] * doc/invoke.texi: fix typos of -finite-math-only I believe there are no other s/-ff/-f/ typos in this file. --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) instruction, the precision of the sequence can be decreased by up to 2 @@ -23366,7 +23366,7 @@ to increase precision instead of @code{DIVSS} and @code{SQRTSS} (and their vectorized variants) for single-precision floating-point arguments. These instructions are generated only when @option{-funsafe-math-optimizations} is enabled -together with @option{-finite-math-only} and @option{-fno-trapping-math}. +together with @option{-ffinite-math-only} and @option{-fno-trapping-math}. Note that while the throughput of the sequence is higher than the throughput of the non-reciprocal instruction, the precision of the sequence can be decreased by up to 2 ulp (i.e. the inverse of 1.0 equals 0.99999994).