http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
--- Comment #23 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-19 12:46:48 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 19 12:46:42 2011
New Revision: 180185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180185
Log:
2011-10-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Comment #21 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-11-13 13:26
---
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, pearly dot zhao at oracle dot com wrote:
(In reply to comment #19)
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
It didn't do
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-11-12 17:20
---
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, pearly dot zhao at oracle dot com wrote:
Run make gcc.pot in objdir/gcc/ can extract both branches of this
conditional
expression. That
--- Comment #20 from pearly dot zhao at oracle dot com 2009-11-13 03:41
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
It didn't do so when I last ran it (gettext 0.17). Are you using another
version? Maybe there need to be stricter version
--- Comment #18 from pearly dot zhao at oracle dot com 2009-11-12 07:54
---
Run make gcc.pot in objdir/gcc/ can extract both branches of this conditional
expression. That is to say, the (declared) line is also include at
objdir/gcc/gcc.pot.
Can this bug be closed?
--
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-28 11:55
---
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-27 16:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-27 16:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I tried to look for more similar cases. But I couldn't find anything. Not
that it is all that easy to search for. Neither error nor ? are
particularly good search terms. :-) So I may
--- Comment #4 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-07-27 17:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Try grep -e ' error ([^]' gcc/*.c -A 1
Ah, ok. I tried to search for similar BUGZILLA reports. Not for similar cases
in the code.
But sure, I can search the code instead. BRB
--
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-27 17:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Try grep -e ' error ([^]' gcc/*.c -A 1
Ah, ok. I tried to search for similar BUGZILLA reports. Not for similar
cases
in the code.
Sorry, I didn't understand
--- Comment #6 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-07-27 17:11 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Sorry, I didn't understand that was what you wanted.
What I WANTED was to do what Paolo Carlini asked about in comment 1. I'm not
sure if I understood him correctly either.
--
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 17:53
---
never mind, you are just lazy, then say it more explicitly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 18:04
---
Sorry about some harshness on my part, but in my opinion we should really have
a single PR about this issue and PR34836, PR29917, PR29017, and maybe a few
more...
--
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-27 18:06 ---
I am not going to work on this. Unsubscribing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
--- Comment #10 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-07-27 18:22 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
... but in my opinion we should really have
a single PR about this issue and PR34836, PR29917, PR29017
Then I did misunderstand you.
These are examples of what meant needed to be handled on
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 18:27
---
Yes, in similar cases either we have a single PR or at least we have a dummy
Bugzilla PR bundling together related issues as blocking it. You can find many
examples.
--
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 18:40
---
Such dummy PRs have the summary starting with [Meta] and all the related
issues it groups are listed in the field depends on (sorry I confused
depends/blocks in my previous message).
--
--- Comment #13 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-07-27 19:27 ---
If I can give any useful help, I'm certainly willing to do so. I'll search for
bugs to add to a meta-bug if you wish. What would the criteria for inclusion
be? Just anything having to do with translation? Anything
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 19:50
---
First, thanks for your help. I went quickly through your own bugs, and indeed,
I don't think they could reasonably all belong to the same meta-bug. However, I
think a meta-bug is definitely in order grouping
--- Comment #15 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-07-27 20:43 ---
Bug 40872 created as a tracker bug, with almost all my own bugs, and a few
others that also seemed to qualify as trivial. I excluded bugs that referred
to errors in the actual translations (l10n rather than i18n).
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-27 21:19
---
Many thanks again!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40872
22 matches
Mail list logo
