[Bug translation/93836] teach xgettext what HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT means

["msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-10-28

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The -Wformat checkers can't detect using the HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT because by the
time they run macros have been expanded and adjacent string literals
concatenated.  They can only detect this problem when compiling for the targets
with the unsupported format directives (like %I64d), which I would expect they
already do.

The problem could be detected by some script, maybe the one that scrapes the
format strings out of the sources and generates the gcc.pot file.  IMO, a good
time to do this is either during bootstrap, or during make check, regardless of
the target.

Anyway, the problematic code is still there in GCC 12(see below) so confirmed.

          if (type != CPP_EOF)
            error ("junk at end of %<#pragma CTABLE_ENTRY%>");
          else if (i >= ARRAY_SIZE (pru_ctable))
            error ("%<CTABLE_ENTRY%> index %" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d"
                   " is not valid", i);
          else if (pru_ctable[i].valid && pru_ctable[i].base != base)
            error ("redefinition of %<CTABLE_ENTRY "
                   "%" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d%>", i);
          else
            {
              if (base & 0xff)
                warning (0, "%<CTABLE_ENTRY%> base address is not "
                            "a multiple of 256");
              pru_ctable[i].base = base;
              pru_ctable[i].valid = true;
            }