From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 54809 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2017 12:52:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 54791 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jan 2017 12:52:38 -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=unrecognized, dgexp, UD:dg.exp, dg.exp 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; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:52:28 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF2BAC57; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not suggest -fsanitize=all (PR driver/78863). To: Jakub Jelinek References: <726a6397-65a6-e8e2-1c55-abe04a56460a@suse.cz> <20161221100020.GT21933@tucnak> <20161221102817.GU21933@tucnak> <59aae7ca-355f-d75c-13f5-5abe9dbd5d83@suse.cz> Cc: GCC Patches , David Malcolm From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:52:00 -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: <59aae7ca-355f-d75c-13f5-5abe9dbd5d83@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On 12/21/2016 04:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > 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. > Is it fine to install the patch to gcc-6 branch? Thanks, Martin