[PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

[Martin Sebor]

Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00858.html

This is just a tweak to fix a translation bug introduced by
one of my warnings (calling warning() where warning_n() is
more appropriate), and to enhance warning_n() et al. to do
the n % 1000000 + 1000000 computation so callers don't have
to worry about it.

On 02/14/2018 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 02:05 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>>> Bug 84207 - Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c points out one
>>> of a number of warning_at() calls where warning_n() should have
>>> been used.  The attached patch both replaces the calls and also
>>> changes the signatures of the warning_n(), error_n(), and
>>> inform_n() functions to take an unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT argument
>>> instead of int.  I also changed the implementation of
>>> diagnostic_n_impl() to deal with unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT values
>>> in excess of ULONG_MAX (the maximum value ngettext handles) so
>>> callers don't need to.
>>
>> Saturating to ULONG_MAX is not correct for languages where the plural
>> form
>> depends on n%10 or n%100 (see the various Plural-Forms entries in the .po
>> files).  If n is too large you want something like n % 1000000 + 1000000
>> instead to get the correct plural form in all cases.
>
> Thanks.  I've made that change in the attached patch.
>
> I was also hoping to test it, either now if it's easy, or if
> it's complicated, sometime in the future but I couldn't find
> a .po file where it would make a difference.  I could have
> easily missed one but none of those I've looked seems to do
> much with the plural forms where such large numbers could
> come up.  The strings are either all empty or all look
> the same.  Do you happen to know of one where it matters
> and a suggestion for how to test it?  I suppose I could
> create a dummy .po file with a non-trivial Plural-Forms but
> then how would I plug it into GCC to verify (in an automated
> test) that the right form is used?
>
> Martin