Hi Jorma,
I have checked in a patch to fix the typos that you reported. There
were a couple of other questions though:
#: config/tc-arm.c:2401
#, c-format
msgid "ignoring attempt to undefine built-in register '%s'"
I do not understand this one. Should it be redefine, not undefine ?
Actually no, "undefine" is correct. The message occurs when the user
has something like this in their assembler source code:
.unreq r1
The ".unreq" pseudo-op is used to remove a register name alias that was
created by an earlier ".req" pseudo-op. But if the user tries to use it
to undefine one of the standard register names then they receive the
warning message shown above. Here is an example of the correct
operation of the .unreq pseudo-op:
arg1 .req r4
arg2 .req r5
foo:
add arg2, arg1
rts
.unreq arg1
.unreq arg2
So arg1 and arg are aliases for registers 4 and 5, and they are being
used to make the code more readable. But they are undefined at the end
of the definition of function foo, so that they will not affect code
later on in the source file.
Perhaps a more understandable warning message would be:
"ignoring attempt to use .unreq on a fixed register name"
What do you think ?
#: config/tc-ia64.c:6989
[...]
" -xauto\t\t automagically remove dependency violations (default)\n"
[...]
Should it be automatically here, not automagically (in -xauto) ?
Yes and no. "Automagically" is one of those computer geek puns. It
means "automatically and in a somewhat magical way". It implies that
not only will the feature happen without any user intervention, but also
that it will do what the user wants without them even understanding how
it works.
When translating, treating "automagically" as if it were "automatically"
is perfectly acceptable.
Cheers
Nick
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
