Re: [MTASCsft PATCH 01/??] MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Jan 27, 2014, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

>> +Although the plugins mentioned as examples are all brought in by means
>> +of dlopen, the @code{plugin} keyword does not imply any direct
>> +involvement of the dynamic loader or the @code{libdl} interfaces: those

> s/:/,/g

Uhh, sorry, I failed to save this one before taking the diffs, because...

>> +@item @code{posix}
>> +@cindex posix

> This should be !posix, or direclty use the macro to get it right?

... when I got to this one, I knew I'd already fixed it.

Here's the incremental patch I put in.

I've also updated the branch, rebasing it onto the current master and
pushing it to the server, still in the lxoliva/thread-safety-docs
branch.


diff --git a/manual/intro.texi b/manual/intro.texi
index 43db2e0..fc2f521 100644
--- a/manual/intro.texi
+++ b/manual/intro.texi
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ conversion (iconv) back-ends.
 
 Although the plugins mentioned as examples are all brought in by means
 of dlopen, the @code{plugin} keyword does not imply any direct
-involvement of the dynamic loader or the @code{libdl} interfaces: those
+involvement of the dynamic loader or the @code{libdl} interfaces, those
 are covered by @code{dlopen}.  For example, if one function loads a
 module and finds the addresses of some of its functions, while another
 just calls those already-resolved functions, the former will be marked


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist     Red Hat Brazil Toolchain Engineer