> > Yeah, BFD can only do that because it forces the %A %B specifiers be
> > in the front.
>
> No, it's worse than that. %A and %B can appear anywhere in the format
> string, but consume their args first. eg.
>
> _bfd_default_error_handler ("section %d is called %A", sec, 1);
>
> Alan Modra
Oh... ick, I didn't realize that. It means my numbers for format
errors in bfd were off because GCC counted positional mismatches as
bugs in note #1 here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00693.html
GCC's current infrastructure doesn't seem suited to handle this style.
The clostest I can shoehorn it is that it's really two separate
formats, one with %A and %B ignoring all other specifiers and checking
against the first N arguments. Then check all other specifiers
ignoring %A and %B against arguments N+1 until the end. (Where N
equals the number of %A and %B appearances.) We can actually do that
in GCC by creating two separate formats. The trick is to calculate N
on the fly and apply both formats against the "right" arguments. I
haven't figured out how to solve that without major surgery on GCC.
I don't know how wedded to this style the bfd folks are, but perhaps
we can modify bfd sources into a more conforming format compatible
with GCC's format checking. However it requires tweeking BFD sources.
I wouldn't consider doing that until format checking is in place so
that we'll know if we introduce bugs into bfd in this conversion.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
