This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: forcing tail/sibling call optimization
- From: Daniel Egger <degger at rz dot fh-muenchen dot de>
- To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:56:30 +0200
- Subject: Re: forcing tail/sibling call optimization
- References: <20001201185846.A12462@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <200012012350.PAA08096@racerx.synopsys.com> <20010104072414.B7732@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <20010103130916.C15036@redhat.com> <20010104095831.A23010@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <20020915063041.GA29112@mars.cs.mu.oz.au> <20020916161951.GA19283@redhat.com> <20020917021754.GA11037@mars.cs.mu.oz.au>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:17:55PM +1000, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> Are the N_() macro invocations below correct?
> If so, is the result a msgid?
> + return N_("call marked as tail call is not in tail position (it is an argument to another call)");
If you want this to return a translated string then it is incorrect.
N_() is normally a noop macro which is just used as a marker for
gettext in places where direct tranlation cannot be used, like
in arrays, structs etc. If you use N_() you need to have an explicit
gettext call somewhere.
--
Servus,
Daniel