This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 08/20] MIPS/GAS: Improve a LUI complaint message
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Paul Koning wrote:
> > @@ -10005,7 +10005,8 @@ mips_ip (char *str, struct mips_cl_insn
> > && imm_expr.X_op == O_constant
> > && (imm_expr.X_add_number < 0
> > || imm_expr.X_add_number >= 0x10000))
> > - as_bad (_("LUI expression not in range 0..65535"));
> > + as_bad (_("LUI expression (%lu) not in 0..65535 range"),
> > + (unsigned long) imm_expr.X_add_number);
> > s = expr_end;
> > continue;
> >
> I'm not a native speaker of English, but the original word order (...in
> range x..y) seems better to me.
I have changed the order so that "0..65535" precedes the noun it
describes as an adjective (substitute e.g. "(the) correct" for
comparison); alternatively "in (the) range of 0..65535" where "0..65535"
is used as a noun would seem correct to me as well.
Anyway the mention of the problematic value is what matters here and I
won't insist on the rest of the change.
While at it I'd like to rise my concern about the lack of a way to output
numbers of the offsetT or addressT type on hosts where these boil down to
the long long type -- I realise in the old days it used to be problematic,
but nowadays we have <inttypes.h> with its PRI* macros, so perhaps we
should factor them in one way or another. Otherwise we risk confusing the
user here or there when values with some high-order bits get truncated and
error messages like this report values that might appear valid once that
happened.
Maciej