From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-444922-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4931 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2016 15:03:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4919 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2016 15:03:27 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:03:17 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCA3AAE8;	Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:03:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not suggest -fsanitize=all (PR driver/78863).
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <726a6397-65a6-e8e2-1c55-abe04a56460a@suse.cz> <20161221100020.GT21933@tucnak> <bd710cf5-d7f4-6df0-36e9-a849b9b191a6@suse.cz> <20161221102817.GU21933@tucnak>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <59aae7ca-355f-d75c-13f5-5abe9dbd5d83@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:05:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161221102817.GU21933@tucnak>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg01785.txt.bz2

On 12/21/2016 11:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I like your approach!
>> make check -k -j10 RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=spellcheck-options-*" works fine.
>>
>> Am I install the patch after it survives proper regression tests?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Also, only related, seems we have misspelling candidates for cases like
> -fsanitiz=ell
> but not for -fsanitize=ell
> (i.e. when the option is actually correct, just the argument to it (or part
> of it) is misspelled).  It would need to be done probably in
> parse_sanitizer_options when we diagnose it:
>       if (! found && complain)
>         error_at (loc, "unrecognized argument to -fsanitize%s= option: %q.*s",
>                   code == OPT_fsanitize_ ? "" : "-recover", (int) len, p);
> go through sanitizer_opts again in that case, add candidates (that are
> valid for the particular option), and if there is a hint, add the hint to
> this message.
> 
> 	Jakub
> 

These look very similar to what I reported in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877.
I've just added your case to the PR.

I'm going to install the patch.

M.