Ping
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 13:12 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 17:24 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.co > > m> > > wrote: > > Original post: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02048.html > > > > PR c++/81610 and PR c++/80567 report problems where the C++ > > > frontend > > > suggested "if", "for" and "else" as corrections for misspelled > > > variable > > > names. > > I've now marked these PRs as regressions: the nonsensical suggestions > are only offered by trunk, not by gcc 7 and earlier. > > > Hmm, what about cases where people are actually misspelling > > keywords? > > Don't we want to handle that? > > > > fi (true) { } > > retrun 42; > > I'd prefer not to. > > gcc 7 and earlier don't attempt to correct the spelling of the "fi" > and > "retrun" above. > > trunk currently does offer "return" as a suggestion, but it was by > accident, and I'm wary of attempting to support these corrections: is > "fi" meant to be an "if", or a function call that's missing its decl, > or a name lookup issue? ...etc > > > In the PRs you mention, the actual identifiers are 1) missing > > includes, which we should check first, and 2) pretty far from the > > suggested keywords. > > The C++ FE is missing a suggestion about which #include to use for > "memset", but I'd prefer to treat that as a follow-up patch (and > probably for next stage 1). > > In the meantime, is this patch OK for trunk? (as a regression fix) > > Thanks > Dave
