> On 15 Jun 2023, at 12:54, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-06-15 at 01:43 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 8:29 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> PR c++/110164 notes that in cases where we have a forward decl
>>>> of a std library type such as:
>>>>
>>>> std::array<int, 10> x;
>>>>
>>>> we omit this diagnostic:
>>>>
>>>> error: aggregate ‘std::array<int, 10> x’ has incomplete type and
>>>> cannot be defined
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds this hint to the diagnostic:
>>>>
>>>> note: ‘std::array’ is defined in header ‘<array>’; this is
>>>> probably fixable by adding ‘#include <array>’
>>>>
>>>
>>> ..."probably"?
>>>
>>
>> Right now, our fixit says:
>> ```
>> /tmp/foo.c:1:1: note: ‘time_t’ is defined in header ‘<ctime>’; did
>> you forget to ‘#include <ctime>’?
>> ```
>>
>> We should probably use the same phrasing for consistency?
>
> It's using the same phrasing (it's calling the same function); I
> changed the wording recently, in r14-1798-g7474c46cf2d371:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/621607.html
>
> I used "probably" because there's no guarantee it will fix things (e.g.
> if the user has non-standard headers).
Ah, sorry Dave, shame on me for not git pulling first :)
No objection then - I like the new phrasing, was just worried about consistency.
>
> Dave
>
Thank you!
