This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Checking format specifiers

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ishikawa <ishikawa at yk dot rim dot or dot jp>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:25:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Checking format specifiers
References: <200307211749.08083.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu><200307221106.40362.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu><874r1eh76c.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><200307221117.16928.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>

Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> writes:

>> annotation, which we deliberately do not put on any of the
>> translations, because --check-format pukes on the extended format
>> specifiers used by the diagnostic printers.
>
> ...but that's wrong:
>    gcc/po> grep "#, c-format" *po | wc -l
>    9849
>
> I checked that, and it seems as if all (or all that I looked at)
> messages have this attribute.

Huh.  I guess it really isn't a very good check then.

zw

References:
- Checking format specifiers (Was: Re: Support for %d$c format specifier in diagnostics.c)
  - From: Wolfgang Bangerth
- Re: Checking format specifiers
  - From: Wolfgang Bangerth
- Re: Checking format specifiers
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Checking format specifiers
  - From: Wolfgang Bangerth

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]