This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Introduce internal_error_cont and exclude it from pot files
- From: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:31:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Introduce internal_error_cont and exclude it from pot files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <04960289-c151-4f57-6059-349ee9fc2f56@suse.cz> <1489602781.28956.51.camel@redhat.com> <3767ecfe-f8bf-2cf0-fd03-a0d588f2cbbd@suse.cz> <28c77f04-dbc1-1297-d7c3-f94700274a7e@suse.cz> <408e109b-94ca-3e8d-8e3c-571fee8ca3b0@redhat.com> <d6fac26f-652d-92cd-13af-f560ac10d63e@suse.cz> <1bfa91df-48ff-2add-95a1-067eaa17eab4@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc0iAkxzw2H5fkowzUn5j4vs-hrKjHeJ1ty9csZbEaJjyg@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/10/2017 05:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 04:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/06/2017 06:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03/24/2017 03:29 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ping that. I'm not sure what's agreement after I read
>>>>> discussion in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-03/msg00070.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Sebor may know, CC'ing him.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if you're pinging the internal_error_cont stuff, or the ODR
>>>> diagnostics changes.
>>>>
>>>> WRT the ODR diagnostics, I'd say let's go with the C++17 style
>>>> (all-lowercase with a hyphen).
>>>>
>>>> If you've got a pointer to the internal_err_cont changes, please pass it
>>>> along.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, I was interested in internal_err_cont. It's next stage1 material, but
>>> I'm willing to have
>>> a feedback whether separation of internal messages is desired to be
>>> excluded from translation or not?
>>
>> As stage1 stuff, I'll largely be ignoring.
>>
>> I'm torn on translating this stuff. It's hard enough for a non-developer to
>> interpret an ICE message, if it's not in their native language it'd be
>> impossible.
>>
>> OTOH, if we translate and the user forwards the translated message to us, we
>> may not be able to interpret.
>>
>> That probably argues there's some part that should be translated to be
>> easier for the users, but the real guts of the message should not be
>> translated.
>
> Message number and catalogue.
>
> /me runs...
>
>> jeff
I there any discussion going on this topic? If not, I'll probably leave it as it is.
Thanks,
Martin