On 10/03/17 09:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 10/03/17 06:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 12:45:25PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR translation/79923
* auto-profile.c (get_combined_location): Convert leading
character of diagnostics to lower case and remove trailing period.
(read_profile): Likewise for various diagnostics.
* config/arm/arm-builtins.c (arm_expand_builtin): Remove trailing
period from various diagnostics.
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Likewise.
* config/msp430/msp430.c (msp430_expand_delay_cycles): Likewise.
(msp430_expand_delay_cycles): Likewise.
Mostly ok, but for
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm-builtins.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm-builtins.c
@@ -2990,60 +2990,60 @@ arm_expand_builtin (tree exp,
&& (imm < 0 || imm > 32))
{
if (fcode == ARM_BUILTIN_WRORHI)
- error ("the range of count should be in 0 to 32. please check the
intrinsic _mm_rori_pi16 in code.");
+ error ("the range of count should be in 0 to 32. please check the
intrinsic _mm_rori_pi16 in code");
I wonder if this shouldn't use a semicolon space in the middle
instead of dot space space (many times in the same file).
Is there a convention in GCC to use semicolons?
I'm okay with changing it to a semicolon (it's slightly better IMO) as long as
it's consistent
with the style GCC uses.
We have tons of messages like:
invalid --param name %qs; did you mean %qs?
Thanks, then using a semicolon here is the right thing to do.
Kyrill
Jakub
