David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> writes:
> + {
> + error_at_rich_loc
> + (&richloc,
> + "%qT has no member named %qE; did you mean %qE?",
> + type, component, field);
> + /* FIXME: error recovery: should we try to keep going,
> + with "field"? (having issued an error, and hence no
> + output). */
It would be really interesting to keep going here (and not return
error mark node). Also in other similar places.
The reason is that often typos cause a lot of follow-on errors, and
these would all go away if the guess was right.
IMHO avoiding followon errors is even more useful than just
the hint, as the more irritating problem is multiple pages
of errors.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
