| Message ID | bd710cf5-d7f4-6df0-36e9-a849b9b191a6@suse.cz |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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
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.
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
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:52:22PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Is it fine to install the patch to gcc-6 branch?
Ok.
Jakub
From 2533c19b4bbd2d9900b043973b504be07343d05c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:16:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Do not suggest -fsanitize=all (PR driver/78863). gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-12-20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> PR driver/78863 * gcc.c (driver::build_option_suggestions): Do not add -fsanitize=all as a suggestion candidate. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-12-20 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> PR driver/78863 * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c: New test. --- gcc/gcc.c | 11 +++++++++++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c diff --git a/gcc/gcc.c b/gcc/gcc.c index f78acd68606..69089484340 100644 --- a/gcc/gcc.c +++ b/gcc/gcc.c @@ -7733,6 +7733,17 @@ driver::build_option_suggestions (void) { for (int j = 0; sanitizer_opts[j].name != NULL; ++j) { + struct cl_option optb; + /* -fsanitize=all is not valid, only -fno-sanitize=all. + So don't register the positive misspelling candidates + for it. */ + if (sanitizer_opts[j].flag == ~0U && i == OPT_fsanitize_) + { + optb = *option; + optb.opt_text = opt_text = "-fno-sanitize="; + optb.cl_reject_negative = true; + option = &optb; + } /* Get one arg at a time e.g. "-fsanitize=address". */ char *with_arg = concat (opt_text, sanitizer_opts[j].name, diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..19b63af565b --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-13.c @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +/* PR driver/78863. */ + +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-fsanitize" } */ +/* { dg-error "unrecognized command line option .-fsanitize..$" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ -- 2.11.0