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
