On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 10:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 09/19/2017 09:54 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 09:50 +0200, Frédéric Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > error (is_pragma > > > > ? G_("missing name in %<#pragma target\(\"%s=\")%>") > > > > : G_("missing name in %<target(\"%s=\")%> > > > > attribute"), > > > > "arch"); > > > > > > > > The additional benefit of this approach is that it would also make > > > > the quoting consistent with what seems to be the prevailing style > > > > of these sorts of messages. (It would be nice to eventually > > > > converge on the same style/quoting and phrasing across all back > > > > and front ends.) > > > Indeed! That's even better as the message uses words the user sees in the > > > source code whatever his/her locale language is.
So I am looking at redoing the error messages and I am trying to decide between two forms. Make pragma/attribute part of the non-translatable string by showing the pragma and/or attribute syntax ast it would be in the C/C++ code (what about Fortran or Ada?). error (is_pragma ? G_("missing architecture name in %<#pragma GCC target (\"arch=string\")%>") : G_("missing architecture name in %<__attribute__ ((target(\"arch=string\"))) %>")); Or include them in the part that does get translated and include less of what is actually in the text of the file being compiled. error (is_pragma ? G_("missing architecture name in %<target (\"arch=string\")%> pragma") : G_("missing architecture name in %<target(\"arch=string\")%> attribute")); Opinions? Steve Ellcey sell...@cavium.com