From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F3EF3858C74 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:06:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 3F3EF3858C74 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-124-TXX2nH-SMFe2yUBleZdnaw-1; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 06:06:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: TXX2nH-SMFe2yUBleZdnaw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D19192CC41; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.125]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE62067840; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 20RB6HTW036210 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:06:18 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 20RB6GqC036209; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:06:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:06:16 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve wording for -freport-bug option. Message-ID: <20220127110616.GF2646553@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20220127104734.GE2646553@tucnak> <015c0eb0-3b9f-83b2-2179-2db2c004d79c@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <015c0eb0-3b9f-83b2-2179-2db2c004d79c@suse.cz> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:06:28 -0000 On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:59:51AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > @@ -1988,7 +1994,7 @@ error_recursion (diagnostic_context *context) > pp_newline_and_flush (context->printer); > > fnotice (stderr, > - "Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.\n"); > + "internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.\n"); Why do we capitalize the "E" in there? Looking for internal_error calls, I think we mostly use lower case after "internal compiler error: ", except for some cases where it should be capitalized like "SSA corruption" etc., but varasm.cc: internal_error ("Section already exists: %qs", name); looks wrong. Jakub