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 <xerofo...@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. >