[RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

Hello,

Paul noticed the following.

2008-01-08  Paul Hilfinger  <hilfinger@adacore.com>

        * gdb.texinfo (C Operators): Remove incorrect parenthetical comment
        about &&var, which is rejected by the expression parser.

Not knowing what was really meant at the implementation level, I'm not
sure whether this is a parser implementation bug, or an error in the
documentation. Paul thought that this was an error in the documentation
so, assuming he is correct, I'm submitting this change on his behalf.

So, is this a parser bug or a documentation error?

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: formatted-doc.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

Index: gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
--- gdb.texinfo	(revision 89)
+++ gdb.texinfo	(revision 90)
@@ -9250,7 +9250,7 @@ Address operator.  Defined on variables.
 
 For debugging C@t{++}, @value{GDBN} implements a use of @samp{&} beyond what is
 allowed in the C@t{++} language itself: you can use @samp{&(&@var{ref})}
-(or, if you prefer, simply @samp{&&@var{ref}}) to examine the address
+to examine the address
 where a C@t{++} reference variable (declared with @samp{&@var{ref}}) is
 stored.