[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I removed the trailing exclamation mark on trunk in r248283 (PR 79852). The translation issue is covered by pr79842. Closing as FIXED.
[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- I removed the trailing exclamation mark on trunk in r248283 (PR 79852).
[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Context is: > > gfc_fatal_error ("Can't USE the same %smodule we're building!", > p->state == COMP_SUBMODULE ? "sub" : ""); > > Possible i18n issue here; are "module" / "submodule" to be translated; > if so, the "sub"-prefixiing could be problematic This is pr79842.
[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Context is: gfc_fatal_error ("Can't USE the same %smodule we're building!", p->state == COMP_SUBMODULE ? "sub" : ""); Possible i18n issue here; are "module" / "submodule" to be translated; if so, the "sub"-prefixiing could be problematic
[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2017-03-23 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- See also pr79852. Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00064.html.
[Bug fortran/79840] Inconsistent exclamation mark in diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This is an internal compiler error diagnostic really. Though maybe it should be consistent it is not a huge issue.