Am 16.05.2019 um 22:24 schrieb Martin Sebor:
> On 5/16/19 8:58 AM, Roland Illig wrote:
>> - error ("#pragma GCC target string... is badly formed");
>> + error ("%<#pragma GCC target%> string is badly formed");
>> - error (
Hi Martin,
I'm impressed how much work you have put into the patches for detecting
nonoptimal diagnostics. It takes a long time to read through the
patches, but it's worth it, knowing that it took much longer for you to
prepare the patch, and that I won't have to submit i18n bug reports in
the
The linter in contrib/ checks all messages that the GCC user may see
whether they conform roughly to the GCC Guidelines for Diagnostics.
* contrib/check-internal-format-escaping.py: improve output of
the linter by providing short rationales for the warnings;
detect space
Already committed, as per https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/svnwrite.html.
2019-05-04 Roland Illig
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (Revision 270868)
+++ MAINTAINERS
There's a linter in contrib/check-internal-format-escaping.py that
checks whether the base file for translations (such as French or German)
conform to some basic style rules. This mostly affects the diagnostics
emitted by GCC.
As the German translation I have added several checks to the linter
Am 15.03.2017 um 03:43 schrieb Martin Sebor:
> Would using the existing internal_error{,no_backtrace}, and
> sorry work for this? (I.e., not translating those.) If my
> count is right there are nearly 500 calls to these three in
> GCC sources so I'm not sure that would put enough of a dent
> in
Hi,
the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be
translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are
diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows:
* errors in user programs, reported via error ()
* additional info for internal errors, reported via
Am 10.03.2017 um 05:12 schrieb Martin Sebor:
> I have just an observation/question here for future consideration.
> If this sort of diagnostic is common (I count 23 instances of it)
> or if it is expected to become common, would it make sense to add
> a directive for it to the pretty printer to
Hi,
in the diagnostics the %qs specifier is used in most of the cases. But
there are some cases left where the more complicated %<%s%> is used. Is
there a good reason to prefer the complicated spelling?
Same for %<%T%> and %qT, and similar letters.
Regards,
Roland
Hi,
I am currently translating GCC into German. During that, I noticed that
in some places the term "zero character" means '\0'. The official term
though is "null character", as per the C standard.
Since it is confusing to have two different terms for the same concept,
the term "zero character"
10 matches
Mail list logo