On 5/31/19 9:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 5/30/19 5:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> So in several places there's a comment which indicates that debugging >> dumps and the like do not follow conventions. Presumably you've tried >> to keep a narrow scope on the diagnostic push/pops. I'm also concerned >> that the comments you mention that we trigger an ICE. >> >> So while I'll ack this patch, I would like to know more about the ICE >> that's triggered in the checker and what the plans are for fixing it. > > Sorry, I didn't word the comment (copied below) very clearly. > What I meant to say is that the calls to error() in these files > that don't follow the convention are ultimately followed by > an ICE triggered either by an assert (as in cfgloop.c) or a call > to internal_error (cgraph.h). The diagnostics themselves don't > cause an ICE. OK. Thanks for the clarification.
> > In a comment on one of the i18n bugs raised for these strings > Richard suggests these error calls should probably replaced by > direct calls to the pretty printer. That would let us avoid > suppressing the warnings and also presumably make it clear to > translators the format strings aren't meant to be translated. > It seemed like too big of a change for this patch so I simply > suppressed the warnings but I agree it's worth considering at > some point. Agreed. > > I'll adjust the comment before I check in the patch (I'm hoping > to commit it at the same time as the checker itself once it's > approved). Your call on when to commit :-) Jeff
