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

[Joel Brobecker]

> > The original text was there since the first version in CVS (in 1999),
> > so I'm inclined to think it's a bug in the parser.
> 
> >From what I know about parsing C, I suggest we go with the
> documentation change.  && is a single token, and && NAME is not
> currently valid.  It would introduce some ambiguities into the
> grammer, I suspect.

So Eli, do you agree with the documentation change? We can always
redocument this later if we manage to make it work... Let me resend
the patch:

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.

Thanks,
-- 
Joel
-------------- next part --------------
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.