https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90119
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #7) > I didn't want to sound that harsh in my previous comment. > > What I wanted to say is: to make the linter reliable and be able to handle > the full syntax of .po files, it's better to use an exising library that is > well-tested instead of parsing .po files ad-hoc using regular expressions > and raw string functions. I welcome your linter! The one I wrote was just a one time script that I eventually installed to our contrib scripts. > > That way the code of the linter becomes easy to read since it uses the > standard terminology of the .po structures, and it is easy to access all > gettext features (such as plurals or other formats) without modifying the > parser code. > > It also becomes easier to add new checks to the linter. > > The diagnostics of the linter now follow more closely the GCC Guidelines for > Diagnostics, by offering guidance and saying what the actual possible > problem is, instead of only pointing to the problematic message. > > This of course requires a bit more code than the current linter. > > I have checked that my rewrite preserves all existing features of the > linter. I don't think adding new features to the current architecture of the > linter makes sense since it requires more work than absolutely necessary. To > add a new linter check, it shouldn't be necessary to modify any .po file > format parser. Therefore I think replacing the current linter with the > latest suggested code from bug 90176 actually makes sense. Great, can you please send a patch to gcc-patches and install the new linter to contrib scripts?
