Re: Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-15 Thread Martin Sebor
On 03/15/2017 10:07 AM, Roland Illig wrote: Am 15.03.2017 um 03:43 schrieb Martin Sebor: Would using the existing internal_error{,no_backtrace}, and sorry work for this? (I.e., not translating those.) If my count is right there are nearly 500 calls to these three in GCC sources so I'm not sure

Re: Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-15 Thread Roland Illig
Am 15.03.2017 um 03:43 schrieb Martin Sebor: > Would using the existing internal_error{,no_backtrace}, and > sorry work for this? (I.e., not translating those.) If my > count is right there are nearly 500 calls to these three in > GCC sources so I'm not sure that would put enough of a dent > in

Re: Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-15 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 15/03/17 02:43, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 03/12/2017 04:51 PM, Roland Illig wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be >> translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are >> diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows: >> >>

Re: Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-14 Thread Martin Sebor
On 03/12/2017 04:51 PM, Roland Illig wrote: Hi, the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows: * errors in user programs, reported via error () *

Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-12 Thread Roland Illig
Hi, the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows: * errors in user programs, reported via error () * additional info for internal errors, reported via