StarOne01 wrote:
> For example, we don't suggest a correction for this:
> ```
> #define FOO1 12
> int x = FOO;
> ```
> but we do suggest a correction for this:
> ```
> int FOO1 = 12;
> int x = FOO;
> ```
Did thought of that.
> I think it will be challenging to support macros in general because we'd have
> to be able to handle `#undef` removing macros that were previously defined,
> etc. I think for right now, it's fine to not have a typo correction.
That's right, i didn't think of `#undef`.
But actually I was sceptical about a different thing.
> If i understand it right, that particular conditional statement should get
> executed for this:
> ```c int main(){ int var1 = 63; int out = var; }```
> and should be skipped for:
> ```c int main(){ int var1 = 63; int out = notFound; }```
> but the problem is that the conditional statement gets executed for both the
> cases, so when i put the new check somewhere below it, the control never
> reaches the new check.
> please correct me if i'm off somewhere :)
This was my actual concern, but this behaviour seems unpredictable, sometimes
happens and sometimes doesn't, but in all the cases no identifiers were near to
eachother.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123495
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
