This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Philipp Thomas <pthomas at suse dot de>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:35:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: Possibly unnecessary differences in messages
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> 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.