From 9d04a3af4c6491536badf6bde9707c907e4d196b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Sebor Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:16:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] extend.texi (Compound Literals): Add '@' missed in last commit. gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/extend.texi (Compound Literals): Add '@' missed in last commit. From-SVN: r238652 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gcc/doc/extend.texi | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index deeaac15b52..45554aebae6 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2016-07-22 Martin Sebor + + * doc/extend.texi (Compound Literals): Add '@' missed in last commit. + 2016-07-22 Martin Sebor PR c/71560 diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi index 5c822657cfb..ad8898c4485 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi @@ -1956,7 +1956,7 @@ because the lifetime of the array ends after the declaration of @code{foo}. As an optimization, G++ sometimes gives array compound literals longer lifetimes: when the array either appears outside a function or has a @code{const}-qualified type. If @code{foo} and its initializer had -elements of type @code{char *const} rather than code{char *}, or if +elements of type @code{char *const} rather than @code{char *}, or if @code{foo} were a global variable, the array would have static storage duration. But it is probably safest just to avoid the use of array compound literals in C++ code. -- 2.30.2