On 06/05/2010 09:18 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Shujing Zhao wrote:
> The Ubuntu etc. people enabling -Wformat-security by default will dislike 
> this sort of change.  I disagree with their choice, but it should be 
> possible to fix i18n issues in a way that is simultaneously friendly to 
> -Wformat-security - in particular, including strings directly in 
> diagnostic function calls whenever possible so that they can actually be 
> checked at compile time.
> 
> This patch suffers from doing far too many things at once.  Some bits 
> might be OK, but various parts are wrong, meaning the whole patch has to 
> be rejected.  Please submit patches that do just one thing and cannot 
> sensibly be subdivided into smaller patches.
> 
> As examples of the things done wrong, strsignal returns a *string* that is 
> not a *format string* and that it is definitely incorrect to treat as a 
> format string.  %e and %n specs are not documented (in the comment in 
> gcc.c that documents specs, or in the unfortunate duplicate documentation 
> in invoke.texi) as taking format strings; if you change the 
> implementation, you must change the interface documentation.  Likewise for 
> other cases of action at a distance in this patch: if you change something 
> from a verbatim string to a format string at the site where the string is 
> called, you must make sure the interface documentation describes this 
> change, and that the relevant strings are marked as gcc-internal-format in 
> gcc.pot to indicate this to translators, and confirm that you have checked 
> that this is appropriate for all callers.
> 
This part is to fix some C++ i18n problems. Bootstrap with no regressions on the 
current trunk.
Is it ok?