From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11156 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2010 22:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 11074 invoked by uid 48); 15 Apr 2010 22:42:53 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100415224253.11073.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg01518.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:42 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > > But for the -Werror=foo issue I'd have thought that making it send the > -Wfoo option through the existing option processing machinery - as if both > were specified consecutively on the command line - should suffice. That > seems largely independent of my proposal, and avoids any issues with > needing functions to be present for all front ends. That is not how it works. Not sure whether such approach would work at all. But that still doesn't solve the PR I mentioned because sending -Wfoo through the option machinery does not turn options enabled by Wfoo into errors. Even worse, what do you suggest for -Wno-error=foo? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43687