Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> On 1/12/22 02:02, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> We've got -Wformat-diag for some time and I think we should start using it
>> in -Werror for GCC bootstrap. The following patch removes last pieces of
>> the warning
>> for rs6000 target.
>>
>> Ready to be installed?
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_invalid_builtin): Wrap
>> keywords and use %qs instead of %<%s%>.
>> (rs6000_expand_builtin): Likewise.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-extract-exp-5.c: Adjust scans in
>> testcases.
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-extract-sig-5.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-insert-exp-11.c: Likewise.
>> ---
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 8 ++++----
>> .../gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-extract-exp-5.c | 2 +-
>> .../gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-extract-sig-5.c | 2 +-
>> .../gcc.target/powerpc/bfp/scalar-insert-exp-11.c | 2 +-
>> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> index c78b8b08c40..becdad73812 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> @@ -3307,7 +3307,7 @@ rs6000_invalid_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins
>> fncode)
>> "-mvsx");
>> break;
>> case ENB_IEEE128_HW:
>> - error ("%qs requires ISA 3.0 IEEE 128-bit floating point", name);
>> + error ("%qs requires ISA 3.0 IEEE 128-bit floating-point", name);
>
> The instances of the warning where floating point is at the end
> of a message aren't correct. The warning should be relaxed to
> allow unhyphenated floating point as a noun (as discussed briefly
> last March:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566881.html)
Wouldn't it be fair to say that “floating point” in the message above is
really an adjective modifying an implicit noun? The floating (decimal)
point doesn't itself have 128 bits.
Like you say in the linked message, we could add an explicit noun too.
But the change seems OK as-is to me.
Thanks,
Richard
