Not quoted option names in errors and warnings

[Martin Sebor]

On 11/20/2018 12:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/20/18 4:24 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 11/20/2018 03:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 11/15/18 5:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2018 03:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've done a quick grep of gcc/po/gcc.pot and I see quite a lot of
>>>>> missing quotations
>>>>> of option names (~400). Is it something we should fix? How
>>>>> important is that?
>>>>
>>>> That's quite a few... I've been fixing these as I notice them,
>>>> usually as part of related changes.  The most onerous part of
>>>> the cleanup is adjusting tests, especially under the target-
>>>> specific ones.  It's (obviously) not critical but I think it
>>>> would be nice to make the quoting consistent throughout over
>>>> time (if not in one go) and then put in place a -Wformat
>>>> checker to detect the missing quoting as new diagnostics are
>>>> introduced.  Do you think it might be scriptable?
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about a proper GCC warning that will be triggered
>>> once a warning
>>> message is missing quotations?
>>>
>>> I can definitely cook a patch in next stage1 and the testsuite fall
>>> out should
>>> be easy to come with.
>>
>> Yes, issuing a -Wformat warning for __gcc_diag__ functions is what
>> I'm thinking of.  A checker that would look for substrings within
>> the format string that match the "-[Wfm][a-z][a-z_1-9]*" patterns
>> (or anything else that matches an option) and point them out if
>> they're not enclosed in a pair of %< %> (or suggest to use %qs).
>>
>> Martin
>
> Sounds good to me. Well, I can imagine doing that for GCC 9 release.
> When will you find spare cycles for the warning? In can prepare
> the warning/error messages patch.

I don't expect to have the time to work on the warning until
sometime in stage 1 (as an enhancement I also wouldn't expect
it to be approved, but maybe you can get away with it ;-)

Martin