On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 18:03, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/14/21 6:17 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR c++/101052 > > > > gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: > > > > * known-headers.cc (get_stdlib_header_for_name): Add known > > headers for EXIT_FAILURE, EXIT_SUCCESS, abort, atexit, calloc, > > exit, and getenv. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * g++.dg/spellcheck-stdlib.C: Add checks for <cstdlib> names. > > * gcc.dg/spellcheck-stdlib.c: Likewise. > > > > There are no C tests for the functions because the C front-end doesn't > > give fix-it hints for them, it complains about mismatched implicit > > declarations. I assume this is why there were no existing tests for > > malloc, free, etc. > > > > Tested powerpc64le-linux. OK for trunk? > > A while back I noticed some other symbol wasn't giving a nice hint. > I think it was one of the <stdint.h> macros that I can never remember > if it's in <inttypes.h> or <limits.h>. So decided to add them all, > and while I was there, I noticed that the function does a linear > search through the array. That seems suboptimal so I started > optimizing it and never finished the work.
Yes, I noticed that. We only search the array after compilation fails, so performance doesn't really matter. > > So I'm wondering if you stopped at the seven above for the same > reason or some other? I lost the motivation to add the rest of <stdlib.h> when testing it for C turned out to be difficult due to C allowing implicit declarations. > > FWIW, I think the symbols that are hardcoded there now are some of > the most obvious ones. The ones that are harder to remember tend > to be missing. (E.g., I'd probably include <wchar.h> for wcstombs > and would have to look it up if I got an error. YMMV of course.) Yes, that's why I wanted to add aligned_alloc, at_quick_exit and quick_exit, in a new c11_cxx11_hints array. They're maybe less "well known" than exit and malloc. > This is not an objection to adding just a handful of new names, just > a comment on the general state of incompleteness and the inefficient > data structure in case that matters. If we don't care enough about > the inefficiency to avoid completing the list then I'd suggest to > add all the missing <stdlib.h> names, not just the seven above.
