On 03/15/2017 10:07 AM, Roland Illig wrote:
Am 15.03.2017 um 03:43 schrieb Martin Sebor:
Would using the existing internal_error{,no_backtrace}, and
sorry work for this? (I.e., not translating those.) If my
count is right there are nearly 500 calls to these three in
GCC sources so I'm not sure that would put enough of a dent
in the 12K messages to translate but I'm even less sure that
adding yet another API would do even that much.
In relative terms the 500 may seem like not so much, but in absolute
terms they are still worth 1 to 3 days of translating work. Especially
since many of the terms in the internal errors are not as carefully
worded as the diagnostics targeted at the GCC user, and they contain
lots of technical terms for which there is no obvious translation.
For the German translation I took the easy path of making the German
internal errors exactly the same as the English ones, so whether this is
addressed or not won't make a difference for the upcoming release. It's
just that I think the other translators shouldn't need to go through the
same steps as I did.
I would suggest to open a request in Bugzilla then and explain
that internal_error{,no_backtrace} strings don't need to be
translated. (From Richard's reply it sounds like the "sorry"
ones still do).
Personally, I think it's less work for everyone not to have to
worry about translating these so it seems like a win-win. It
would be helpful to put in place some sort of a checker to catch
some of these problems (or unnecessary annotation if there's
consensus about your proposal) early, during development.
Since there have been a number of general suggestions recently
to improve how GCC deals with internationalization it might
also be helpful to summarize those that end up adopted to
the GCC Diagnostic Guidelines Wiki:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DiagnosticsGuidelines
Martin
