From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-93835-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7042 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2012 20:44:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 7024 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2012 20:44:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:44:06 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8V00G007FIY700@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:44:04 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8V00FF589GZPK0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:44:04 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:44:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA 3/3] c++/13356: Update documentation
In-reply-to: <502D54F9.2090909@redhat.com>
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83d32qbm8x.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <502D54F9.2090909@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:15:53 -0700
> From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
> 
> +The second example fails because the integer constant @samp{0x1234} is not
> +type-compatible with the pointer parameter type.

Why not? if the current language is C, I see no incompatibilities
here.  What am I missing?

> +When type checking is disabled, @value{GDBN} evaluates expressions
> +like the second example above.

Should probably say "successfully evaluates".

> +Set strict type checking on or off. If any type mismatches occur in
                                     ^^
Two spaces, please.

OK with those changes.

Thanks.