From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29557 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2002 17:13:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29494 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 17:13:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 17:13:52 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [213.95.15.136]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504CE1E905; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:13:51 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:04:00 -0000 From: Philipp Thomas To: Nick Clifton Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages Message-ID: <20020129181350.I15749@jeffreys.suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Philipp Thomas , Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.16i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 Nick, elf32_arm_copy_private_bfd_data in bfd/elf32-arm.h at line 2161 has this code: /* If the src and dest have different interworking flags then turn off the interworking bit. */ if ((in_flags & EF_ARM_INTERWORK) != (out_flags & EF_ARM_INTERWORK)) { if (out_flags & EF_ARM_INTERWORK) _bfd_error_handler (_("\ Warning: Clearing the interwork flag in %s because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it"), bfd_get_filename (obfd), bfd_archive_filename (ibfd)); and coff_arm_copy_private_bfd_data in bfd/coff-arm.c at line 2457 has: /* If the src and dest have different interworking flags then turn off the interworking bit. */ if (INTERWORK_FLAG (dest) != INTERWORK_FLAG (src)) { if (INTERWORK_FLAG (dest)) { /* xgettext:c-format */ _bfd_error_handler (("Warning: Clearing the interworking bit of %s, because the non-interworking code in %s has been copied into it"), bfd_get_filename (dest), bfd_archive_filename (src)); As far as I can tell (I have nearly no knowledge of ARM), the code does the same thing and only uses slightly different wording for the message, correct? If so, the messages should be identical, and the only question would be which of the two should be used. BTW, at least the messages dealing with the interwork flag differ slightly between elf32-arm.h and coff-arm.c. One example is in the above snippets which use 'interworking flag' and 'interwork flag' respectively. I'd also like to get those messages in sync if that's OK with you. If yes, should I use interwork flag or interworking flag. All those changes would make translating easier as identical messages get merged in the master message catalog. Philipp -- Philipp Thomas SuSE Linux AG, Deutscherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nuremberg, Germany