This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix grammar in bfd warning message
- From: Douglas B Rupp <rupp at adacore dot com>
- To: Phil Blundell <pb at pbcl dot net>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:58:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix grammar in bfd warning message
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5784C01F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
I found the diagnostic useful in a port I'm working on, so I'd like to
I also agree with Phil Blundell on his rewording to remove the
ambiguity, i.e. use "at".
On 07/12/2016 12:45 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 12:02 +0200, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
Please review and apply attached if you please.
I don't have write privileges.
- (_("Warning: Writing section `%s' to huge (ie negative)
file offset 0x%lx."),
+ (_("Warning: Writing section `%s' too huge (ie
negative) file offset 0x%lx."),
I don't think this change is an improvement. In the original phrasing
"to" was intended to be a preposition: it's complaining that it is
writing a section "to" a location in the file whose offset is so large
that it doesn't fit in a signed int. With your change the sentence no
longer has a preposition which breaks the grammar.
If you wanted to remove the potential ambiguity in the original
sentence then replacing "to" with "at" might do it.
On the other hand, warning about offsets that don't fit in 31 bits
seems a tiny bit arbitrary and I don't know if that diagnostic is
actually conveying any useful information in the first place.