From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19010 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2012 08:16:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 19001 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2012 08:16:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:15:57 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1S5uzT-0006D9-Mp from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:15:55 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 00:15:32 -0800 Received: from [172.30.13.7] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:15:47 +0000 Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:16:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Joel Brobecker CC: Subject: Re: [commit] Fix ARI violations in mips-linux-nat.c and mips-tdep.c In-Reply-To: <20120309041102.GA2853@adacore.com> Message-ID: References: <20120302015615.GA30880@sourceware.org> <1330715778-30398-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120309041102.GA2853@adacore.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > - perror_with_name ("ptrace"); > > > + perror_with_name (_("ptrace")); > > > break; > > > } > > > } > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure if "ptrace" can be translated to anything as it's a > > proper name; however if you're in a picky mood, then watch out for > > numerous cases like this: > > Yeah, these are a little silly. One way to make the a little less > silly, perhaps, would be to have a better message... But not worth > spending time over, if you ask me. Yes, I can't comment on the others, but this "ptrace" one surely is for an "impossible" error condition (system on fire, anyone?), so it doesn't really make sense to put a lot of effort into it as perror will already have provided some kind of a comprehensive explanation. What about the other issue I noted however, i.e.: gdb/event-loop.c: perror_with_name (("poll")); vs expected: gdb/event-loop.c: perror_with_name (_("poll")); (and so on) -- these clearly look like an oversight. Maciej