[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.1.0                       |---


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-12-03 20:10 -------
I think the current behavior of ignoring the option with a warning is fine. I
agree with Wolfgang that If anything, we should remove any processing for this
misspelling. A patch to that effect is welcomed, but this is obviously a very
low priority.


-- 

bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.0.1                       |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.0.0                       |4.0.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2005-03-06 21:37 -------
I think the whole idea of second-guessing what a user might have meant when 
he misspelled an option is debatable. I personally am of the opinion that 
this should yield an error or a warning, but that we shouldn't attempt to 
figure out what she might have meant instead. 
 
But that's only by 2 cents... 
 
W. 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat'|Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat'
                   |is failings                 |is failing


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[mattheww at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk]

------- Additional Comments From mattheww at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk  2003-11-10 14:32 -------
Indeed, the broken code I quoted has gone now.

With the current code, it looks as if the special-case handing for '-gnatO' will
fail if '-gantO' is passed. Perhaps this one-off spelling correction is more
trouble than it's worth?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mattheww at chiark dot
                   |                            |greenend dot org dot uk


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-11-10 11:38 -------
I do not see anything 'obviousely' wrong in the current misc.c code,
but -gant is still not handled correctly.

I am not familiar at all with the new way switches are handled in gcc,
so any help/suggestion would be welcome.

Note that the patch for switch.adb should not be needed: the idea is
to rewrite in misc.c -gantxxx as -gnatxxx, so as far as gnat is
concerned, it should only see -gnatxxx switches, and therefore
does not need to recognize -gant everywhere.

Arno

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[dhazeghi@yahoo.com]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945


dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-06-02 01:54:07
               date|                            |


------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-02 01:54 -------
Thanks for the confirmation. If you don't mind updating your patch and sending it to gcc-patches, 
that'd be great, but if not, hopefully this'll get fixed one of these days...



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945



------- Additional Comments From mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk  2003-05-27 18:50 -------
The behaviour is still the same with cvs HEAD from 2003-05-26. Ada-side option
handling has changed, though, so the patch no longer applies. The bogus code in
misc.c is still there.




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945


pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-05-26 18:46 -------
3.1 is an old release, would you mind testing in more recent version of gcc, 3.3?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.