On 2 May, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/29/2017 04:23 PM, Volker Reichelt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the following patch adds fix-it hints to the C++ parser for two wrongly
>> used keywords detected in cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> 2017-04-29 Volker Reichelt <v.reich...@netcologne.de>
>>
>> * parser.c (cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq): Add fix-it hints for
>> friend outside class and obsolete auto as storage-class-specifier.
>>
>> Index: gcc/cp/parser.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/cp/parser.c 2017-04-28
>> +++ gcc/cp/parser.c 2017-04-28
>> @@ -13213,7 +13213,9 @@
>> case RID_FRIEND:
>> if (!at_class_scope_p ())
>> {
>> - error_at (token->location, "%<friend%> used outside of class");
>> + gcc_rich_location richloc (token->location);
>> + richloc.add_fixit_remove ();
>> + error_at_rich_loc (&richloc, "%<friend%> used outside of class");
>> cp_lexer_purge_token (parser->lexer);
>> }
>> else
>> @@ -13277,8 +13279,11 @@
>>
>> /* Complain about `auto' as a storage specifier, if
>> we're complaining about C++0x compatibility. */
>> - warning_at (token->location, OPT_Wc__11_compat, "%<auto%>"
>> - " changes meaning in C++11; please remove it");
>> + gcc_rich_location richloc (token->location);
>> + richloc.add_fixit_remove ();
>> + warning_at_rich_loc (&richloc, OPT_Wc__11_compat,
>> + "%<auto%> changes meaning in C++11; "
>> + "please remove it");
>
> What caught my eye here is the "please remove it" part :) Maybe
> it's me but it seems a little too forceful for a warning (despite
> the please). I would find a more conventional phrasing like
> "suggest to remove it" to be more suitable.
>
> That said, I wonder if removing the auto is actually the best
> suggestion. Wouldn't it more in line with where C++ is headed
> to suggest to remove the type and keep the auto?
>
> Martin
I think you missed that we are in C++98 mode here. Dropping the 'auto'
is the only viable choice to stay in C++98 mode and gain C++11
compatibility.
With that in mind, I don't think that the wording "please remove it"
is bad. The user is in C++98 mode and wants to know about C++11
compatibility (as OPT_Wc__11_compat is selected). So the compiler
gives her/him clear advice what to do.
For me "suggest to remove it" sounde too weak (more like "if you run
into problems in C++11, you could try to drop the 'auto' here").
Other solutions like "'auto' needs to be removed here to gain C++11
compatibility" sound a bit clumsy to me.
Regards,
Volker
