Re: Patch that fix PR80188

[nick <xerofoify at gmail dot com>]

On 2017-09-29 01:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>  > Greetings,
>  >
>  > I don't have write access so can someone commit this bug fix as it
>  > fixes,
>  > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188.
>  >
>  > Author: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>  > Date:   Fri Sep 29 11:39:46 2017 -0400
>  >
>  >    This patch fixes, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188
>  >    which reports that the char* pointer reason is not being translated
>  >    properly when the error message from the function,
>  >    maybe_complain_about_tail_call arises. Fix it by wrapping it in the
>  >    N_ macro to translate to the proper language of the user. No new
>  >    test cases are required due to the triviality of the bug.
>  >
>  > diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
>  > index 6bd025ed197..cfdd6b2cf6b 100644
>  > --- a/gcc/calls.c
>  > +++ b/gcc/calls.c
>  > @@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ maybe_complain_about_tail_call (tree call_expr, 
> const char *reason)
>  >    if (!CALL_EXPR_MUST_TAIL_CALL (call_expr))
>  >      return;
>  >
>  > -  error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (call_expr), "cannot tail-call: %s", reason);
>  > +  error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (call_expr), "cannot tail-call: %s", 
> N_(reason));
>  > }
>  >
>  > /* Fill in ARGS_SIZE and ARGS array based on the parameters found in
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Nick
> 
> No, this does obviously not fix the problem.
> 
> The main problem is that po/gcc.pot does contain the "cannot tail-call"
> string but not the various reasons for it, so the translators have
> noting to translate.
> 
> You should wrap all strings that need to be translated in N_,
> and where you do use N_ you should use _(reason).
> So that make -C gcc gcc.pot picks them up when the gcc.pot is created,
> which is only done on request, but it would be good to check
> that the gcc.pot file looks right with your patch at least.
> 

So I understand correctly the gcc.pot is used for something and that the
cannot tail call but not the various reasons for it. So this N_ marco 
is a way to get debugging or symbol information or something more like:

error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (call_expr),N_("cannot tail-call: %s"),

gcc.pot for that line is: 
#: calls.c:1516
▸ prev-zlib/                   |16905 #, gcc-internal-format, gfc-internal-format
▸ stage1-fixincludes/          |16906 msgid "cannot tail-call: %s"
▸ stage1-gcc/                  |16907 msgstr ""

This seems wrong to me but I am new so double checking would be nice. Or our to talking
about all lines in gcc.pot requiring something similar? I am a bit confused by is it
just this area or all of the output that needs fixing in gcc.pot?
> But most importantly a patch like this is worthless when it was not
> tested, so the minimum is you have to state that you did bootstrap with
> your patch and the test suite did not produce any new failures
> that were not there without your patch.
> 
> 
I ran the test suite and got no known new failures. I assumed that I didn't need
to report that but if so that's fine. This is something I always do if possible.
Thanks for the quick reply, 
Nick  
> Bernd.
>