On 09/24/2015 11:32 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 September 2015 at 15:06, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 09/22/2015 04:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
+ error_at (loc, "-Werror=%s: no option -%s", arg, new_option);
+ else if (!(cl_options[option_index].flags & CL_WARNING))
+ error_at (loc, "-Werror=%s: -%s is not an option that controls
warnings",
Won't these incorrectly start with "-Werror=Wsomething:" rather than the
"-Werror=something" that the user wrote?
They follow the pattern of the code they replace:
- {
- error_at (loc, "-Werror=%s: no option -%s", arg, new_option);
- }
where 'arg' is what the user wrote after '=', and new_option is:
new_option[0] = 'W';
strcpy (new_option + 1, arg);
Or am I misunderstanding you?
No, you're right, I was misreading. The patch is OK.
Jason
