On 1/13/22 05:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
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.
I agree you could say that too. I didn't mean what I said as
an objection to the change but more as an observation that it
shouldn't be necessary (and an acknowledgment that I haven't
yet done what I said I'd do).
Martin
Thanks,
Richard
