On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:12 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 17:24 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat. >> > > com> >> > > 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) >> >> Yes. > > Thanks; committed (r257456). > > FWIW, I've filed PR c++/84269 so I remember to fix the missing > suggestion for "memset" (in gcc 9 stage1).
Did you have a reaction to my comment about the suggested keyword being pretty far from the actual identifier? Do we want to lower the cutoff for suggestions at all? Jason
