[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm-branch] r164494 - /llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst

[Tom Stellard]

Author: tstellar
Date: Mon Sep 24 10:51:26 2012
New Revision: 164494

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=164494&view=rev
Log:
Add missing 'to' and rephrase an explanation of GCC's assumptions.

Wordsmithing by Matt Beaumont-Gay in response to r164389.

Modified:
    llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst

Modified: llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst?rev=164494&r1=164493&r2=164494&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst (original)
+++ llvm/branches/R600/docs/CodingStandards.rst Mon Sep 24 10:51:26 2012
@@ -830,11 +830,11 @@
 supports the warning.
 
 A knock-on effect of this stylistic requirement is that when building LLVM with
-GCC you may get warnings related "control may reach end of non-void function"
+GCC you may get warnings related to "control may reach end of non-void function"
 if you return from each case of a covered switch-over-enum because GCC assumes
-that the enum expression may take any representable value, not just those in
-the enumeration. To suppress this warning, use ``llvm_unreachable`` after the
-switch.
+that the enum expression may take any representable value, not just those of
+individual enumerators. To suppress this warning, use ``llvm_unreachable`` after
+the switch.
 
 Use ``LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION`` to mark uncallable methods
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^