This is the mail archive of the
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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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 <email@example.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
>>> 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
>> 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
> Message number and catalogue.
> /me runs...
I there any discussion going on this topic? If not, I'll probably leave it as it is.