On 1/22/19 10:55 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > PR driver/88911 reports an issue where the user couldn't remember the spelling > of the "-dumpspecs" option, and attempted various similar spellings, but many > of them failed to contain a suggestion of the correct spelling: > > $ gcc q.c -dump-spec > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: u > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: m > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: - > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: s > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: e > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: c > $ gcc q.c -dump-specs > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: u > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: m > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: - > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: s > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: e > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: c > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: s > $ gcc q.c -fdump-spec > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option '-fdump-spec' > $ gcc q.c -fdump-specs > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option '-fdump-specs' > $ gcc q.c -fdumpspecs > gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-fdumpspecs'; did you > mean '-dumpspecs'? > [Aha!] > > There are two issues here: > > (a) unmatched options beginning with "-d" are treated as part of the > "-d" option, leading to a warning from decode_d_option, but no > suggestion. > > (b) options beginning with "-fdump-" are also passed to a special > handler, and this doesn't offer suggestions for unmatched options > either. > > This patch uses option_proposer::suggest_option to add suggestions > in both places, leading to useful suggestions for all of the cases > given above. For the case of "-d" it only offers a suggestion for > the first unrecognized character. I also added quotes around the > character in the message, and indicate the full option for context, > so that the first example above becomes: > > $ gcc q.c -dump-spec > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: 'u' (as part of > '-dump-spec'); did you mean '-dumpspecs'? > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: 'm' (as part of > '-dump-spec') > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: '-' (as part of > '-dump-spec') > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: 's' (as part of > '-dump-spec') > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: 'e' (as part of > '-dump-spec') > cc1: warning: unrecognized gcc debugging option: 'c' (as part of > '-dump-spec') > > Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > Is this patch OK for trunk? > (it's not a regression, but it's fairly self-contained, so would this be > acceptable now, or should I queue it for when stage 1 reopens?) > > gcc/ChangeLog: > PR driver/88911 > * opts-global.c: Include "opt-suggestions.h". > (handle_common_deferred_options) <OPT_fdump_>: If the argument is > unrecognized, attempt to provide a hint. > * opts.c: Include "opt-suggestions.h". > (common_handle_option) <OPT_d>: Pass original option argument text > to decode_d_option. > (decode_d_option): Add parameter "orig_arg". Use it to provide a > hint within the first unrecognized character. Wrap the character > in quotes, and indicate the original argument it belongs to. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > PR driver/88911 > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-pr88911-1.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-pr88911-2.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-pr88911-3.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-pr88911-4.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-options-pr88911-5.c: New test. A "pocket veto" for gcc-9 :-) However it makes a lot of sense to me for gcc-10.
It looks reasonable to me. Can't hurt to spin it again before committing. jeff
