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 <dmalc...@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. Jason
