[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43687 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 23:00 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:42 --- > (In

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:42 --- (In reply to comment #14) > > But for the -Werror=foo issue I'd have thought that making it send the > -Wfoo option through the existing option processing machinery - as if both > were specified consecutively on the

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 22:32 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:21 --- > (In

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 22:21 --- (In reply to comment #12) > > I don't see adding function pointers as a particular improvement over the > existing code where switch statements can already handle group options That code does not work when options

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 22:01 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I just want to know whether my current approach is feasible or will be > overridden

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 21:42 --- (In reply to comment #10) > > We haven't determined who will end up implementing the proposal or > produced an implementation design at that level of detail, but personally You make it sound as a project that will

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 21:30 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 20:52 --- > (In

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 20:52 --- (In reply to comment #8) > > We have not yet begun implementation. For the semantics of group options, > see Appendix 1 in my proposal (if -Wx implies -Wy and -Wz, then -Wno-y -Wx > and -Wx -Wno-y both should disabl

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 20:37 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > (In reply to comment #6) > > Subject: Re: New: Unexpected error message for bad comm

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 20:00 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Subject: Re: New: Unexpected error message for bad command > line argument > > My multilib selection proposal > envisages the driver > h

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 19:50 --- Subject: Re: New: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument My multilib selection proposal envisages the driver having a better structured notion o

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #5 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-09 22:16 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On 04/09/2010 02:34 PM, wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > POSIX says that for command line arguments "-a -d", "-d -a", "-da", and "-ad" > ar

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #4 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:34 --- I don't think this is documented anywhere. Not in gcc at least. POSIX says that for command line arguments "-a -d", "-d -a", "-da", and "-ad" are all equivalent. Many GNU tools do not conform to this rule. A long

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 07:28 --- (In reply to comment #1) > This is actually expected, though I cannot find it documented anywhere. I > thought I had saw it in the documentation at one point. Almost all --* > options > are converted over to -f* to c

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 22:40 --- option_map has: {"--", "-f", "*j"} And has been there since: r3686 | rms | 1993-03-08 21:47:14 -0800 (Mon, 08 Mar 1993) | 4 lines Handle lo

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 22:35 --- This is actually expected, though I cannot find it documented anywhere. I thought I had saw it in the documentation at one point. Almost all --* options are converted over to -f* to conform to the GNU coding style