This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Further unification of ARM messages.
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Philipp Thomas <pthomas at suse dot de>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:31:24 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Further unification of ARM messages.
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> After rechecking coff-arm.c and elf32-arm.h, I discovered yet more places
> where messages could be unified. Here's the patch to accomplish that. It
> also corrects punctuation and removes the gettext calls for APCS-26
> and APCS-32 in elf32_arm_print_private_bfd_data as these should not be
> translated.
> + (_("ERROR: %s compiled for APCS-%d, whereas %s is compiled for APCS-%d"),
Need to use verbs consistently: "%s compiled" vs "%s is compiled" (use the
latter).
> + msg = _("ERROR: %s compiled as position independent code, whereas target %s is absolute position");
Likewise
> + msg = _("ERROR: %s compiled as absolute position code, whereas target %s is position independent");
Likewise
> +ERROR: %s compiled for EABI version %d, whereas %s is compiled for version %d"),
Likewise
> +ERROR: %s compiled for APCS-%d, whereas target %s uses APCS-%d"),
> bfd_archive_filename (ibfd),
> in_flags & EF_ARM_APCS_26 ? 26 : 32,
> bfd_get_filename (obfd),
Likewise
> -Warning: %s supports interworking, whereas %s does not"),
> +Warning: %s supports interworking, whereas %s does not."),
I believe the coding convention is no period at the end of a message.
> -Warning: %s does not support interworking, whereas %s does"),
> +Warning: %s does not support interworking, whereas %s does."),
And again
R.