This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs

From: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
To: Roland Illig <roland dot illig at gmx dot de>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:57:24 +0000
Subject: Re: diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <29d5d377-3260-53d6-6dc5-80a014a1ac49@gmx.de>

On 07/03/17 20:38, Roland Illig wrote:

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.

'q' is a flag supported by some format codes but not all. Also, althoughdifferent parts of the compiler may support the same format codes (%T), not allmay have support for 'q' yet. Finally, there may be some code using %<%T%> thatpredates the existence of '%qT'.

Ideally, we should move all the code to use 'q' and leave %<%> for specificcases like quoting text: "%<--help%>"

Any help on this is appreciated:https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps


Cheers,

Manuel.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
  - From: Joseph Myers

References:
- diagnostics: %<%s%> vs. %qs
  - From: Roland Illig

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