On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:28:15AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > This is a resend of a patch kit I sent in stage 3; the original post > was here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01933.html > > I've rebased the patches against yesterday's trunk and retested them. > > They add various fix-it hints to existing diagnostics (PR 62314 is a > catch-all for adding fix-its). > > The first patch in the kit adds a fix-it insertion hint for missing > "template <> " in explicit specializations, and improves the > reported range of the type name by capturing the full range, rather > than just one token within it. > > I note that clang (http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html) suggests > inserting > template<> > whereas our diagnostic talks about > template <> > hence I have the fixit suggest inserting that. Should we change our > wording instead, and lose the space?
Selfishly I'd prefer to lose the space on the grounds all the other projects I work on don't put one there and gcc is inconsistant about it. That said assuming there are projects that put a space there it seems unfortunate we need to pick one which will definitely be suboptimal for some people. Trev
