[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-12-03 20:10 ---
I think the current behavior of ignoring the option with a warning is fine. I
agree with Wolfgang that If anything, we should remove any processing for this
misspelling. A patch to that effect is welcomed, but this is obviously a very
low priority.


-- 

bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.1.0   |---


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.0.1   |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.0.0   |4.0.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945

[Bug ada/4945] Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat' is failing

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2005-03-06 21:37 
---
I think the whole idea of second-guessing what a user might have meant when 
he misspelled an option is debatable. I personally am of the opinion that 
this should yield an error or a warning, but that we shouldn't attempt to 
figure out what she might have meant instead. 
 
But that's only by 2 cents... 
 
W. 

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat'|Rewriting '-gant' as '-gnat'
   |is failings |is failing


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4945