* Possibly unnecessary differences in messages
@ 2002-01-29 10:04 Philipp Thomas
2002-01-29 11:16 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-29 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: binutils
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 <pthomas@suse.de>
SuSE Linux AG, Deutscherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nuremberg, Germany
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages 2002-01-29 10:04 Possibly unnecessary differences in messages Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-29 11:16 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:08 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 6:15 ` [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h Philipp Thomas 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-29 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philipp Thomas; +Cc: Nick Clifton, binutils, Richard.Earnshaw > 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? I believe so, yes. > If > so, the messages should be identical, and the only question would be which > of the two should be used. Yes. > 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. > I think "interworking flag" is correct. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages 2002-01-29 11:16 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:08 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 6:12 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:15 ` [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h Philipp Thomas 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard.Earnshaw; +Cc: Nick Clifton, binutils * Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com) [20020129 19:35]: > > so, the messages should be identical, and the only question would be which > > of the two should be used. > > Yes. Damn, I should have been more precise ;-) Which wording should I use? 'because the non-interworking code in %s has been copied into it' or 'because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it' ? To me at least the second looks like the better choice. Philipp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages 2002-01-30 6:08 ` Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:12 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philipp Thomas; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw, Nick Clifton, binutils > * Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com) [20020129 19:35]: > > > > so, the messages should be identical, and the only question would be which > > > of the two should be used. > > > > Yes. > > Damn, I should have been more precise ;-) Which wording should I use? > 'because the non-interworking code in %s has been copied into it' or > 'because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it' ? > > To me at least the second looks like the better choice. Agreed. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-29 11:16 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:08 ` Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:15 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 6:21 ` Richard Earnshaw 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard.Earnshaw; +Cc: Nick Clifton, binutils OK, here is my attempt at unifying the messages in those two files. Can I check it in? 2002-30-01 Philipp Thomas <pthomas@suse.de> * coff-arm.c, elf32-elf.h: Unify messages. Index: coff-arm.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/coff-arm.c,v retrieving revision 1.31 diff -u -p -r1.31 coff-arm.c --- coff-arm.c 2001/09/20 23:30:34 1.31 +++ coff-arm.c 2002/01/30 13:59:24 @@ -2297,10 +2297,10 @@ coff_arm_merge_private_bfd_data (ibfd, o if (INTERWORK_FLAG (ibfd)) /* xgettext: c-format */ - msg = _("Warning: input file %s supports interworking, whereas %s does not."); + msg = _("Warning: %s supports interworking, whereas %s does not."); else /* xgettext: c-format */ - msg = _("Warning: input file %s does not support interworking, whereas %s does."); + msg = _("Warning: %s does not support interworking, whereas %s does."); _bfd_error_handler (msg, bfd_archive_filename (ibfd), bfd_get_filename (obfd)); @@ -2398,7 +2398,7 @@ _bfd_coff_arm_set_private_flags (abfd, f { if (flag) /* xgettext: c-format */ - _bfd_error_handler (_("Warning: Not setting interworking flag of %s, since it has already been specified as non-interworking"), + _bfd_error_handler (_("Warning: Not setting interworking flag of %s since it has already been specified as non-interworking"), bfd_archive_filename (abfd)); else /* xgettext: c-format */ @@ -2461,7 +2461,8 @@ coff_arm_copy_private_bfd_data (src, des 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_error_handler (("\ +Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s, because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it"), bfd_get_filename (dest), bfd_archive_filename (src)); } Index: elf32-arm.h =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-arm.h,v retrieving revision 1.71 diff -u -p -r1.71 elf32-arm.h --- elf32-arm.h 2002/01/16 13:01:54 1.71 +++ elf32-arm.h 2002/01/30 13:59:25 @@ -2112,11 +2112,11 @@ elf32_arm_set_private_flags (abfd, flags { if (flags & EF_ARM_INTERWORK) (*_bfd_error_handler) (_("\ -Warning: Not setting interwork flag of %s since it has already been specified as non-interworking"), +Warning: Not setting interworking flag of %s since it has already been specified as non-interworking"), bfd_archive_filename (abfd)); else _bfd_error_handler (_("\ -Warning: Clearing the interwork flag of %s due to outside request"), +Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s due to outside request"), bfd_archive_filename (abfd)); } } @@ -2164,7 +2164,7 @@ elf32_arm_copy_private_bfd_data (ibfd, o { 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"), +Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it"), bfd_get_filename (obfd), bfd_archive_filename (ibfd)); -- Philipp Thomas <pthomas@suse.de> Development, SuSE Linux AG, Deutscherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nuremberg, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-30 6:15 ` [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:21 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:24 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philipp Thomas; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw, Nick Clifton, binutils > OK, here is my attempt at unifying the messages in those two files. Can I > check it in? OK, but: > @@ -2461,7 +2461,8 @@ coff_arm_copy_private_bfd_data (src, des > 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_error_handler (("\ > +Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s, because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it"), Leave out the comma, you already have in the other file. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-30 6:21 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:24 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:53 ` Philipp Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philipp Thomas; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw, Nick Clifton, binutils > > OK, here is my attempt at unifying the messages in those two files. Can I > > check it in? > > OK, but: > > > @@ -2461,7 +2461,8 @@ coff_arm_copy_private_bfd_data (src, des > > 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_error_handler (("\ > > +Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s, because non-interworking code in %s has been linked with it"), > > Leave out the comma, you already have in the other file. > > R. > One other thing. Why have you switched to "interworking *bit*"? I think flag was clearer. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-30 6:24 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 6:53 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 8:41 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard.Earnshaw; +Cc: Nick Clifton, binutils * Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com) [20020130 15:15]: > > > - _bfd_error_handler (("Warning: Clearing the interworking bit of %s > > > + _bfd_error_handler (("Warning: Clearing the interworking flag of %s, > > Leave out the comma, you already have in the other file. Thanks for spotting that. > One other thing. Why have you switched to "interworking *bit*"? I think > flag was clearer. Read again ;-) The *old* code used "interworking bit", which I changed to "interworking flag" precisely because I thought it to be clearer. Philipp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-30 6:53 ` Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 8:41 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 9:05 ` Philipp Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philipp Thomas; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw, Nick Clifton, binutils > Read again ;-) The *old* code used "interworking bit", which I changed to > "interworking flag" precisely because I thought it to be clearer. Argh! Addled brain. OK R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h 2002-01-30 8:41 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2002-01-30 9:05 ` Philipp Thomas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Philipp Thomas @ 2002-01-30 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw, Nick Clifton, binutils * Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com) [20020130 15:24]: > Argh! Addled brain. Happens to all of us ;-) > OK Checked in with the changes mentioned. Philipp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-30 14:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-01-29 10:04 Possibly unnecessary differences in messages Philipp Thomas 2002-01-29 11:16 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:08 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 6:12 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:15 ` [PATCH] Unify messages in coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 6:21 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:24 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 6:53 ` Philipp Thomas 2002-01-30 8:41 ` Richard Earnshaw 2002-01-30 9:05 ` Philipp Thomas
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).