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.
