On 17 September 2015 at 21:57, David Malcolm wrote:
> In my mind it's more about saving the user from having to locate the
> field they really meant within the corresponding structure declaration
> (either by grep, or by some cross-referencing tool).
I think it is more than that. After a long cod
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 13:31 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
> > here a bit.
> A limiter is reasonable, though as it's been pointed out this only fires
> during error processing, so
On 09/16/2015 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
here a bit.
A limiter is reasonable, though as it's been pointed out this only fires
during error processing, so we probably have more leeway to take time
and see if we can do b
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 16 September 2015 at 15:33, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
if we suggest 'foo' instead of foz then we'll get a more confusing followup
error if we actually use it.
>>>
>>>
On 16 September 2015 at 15:33, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> if we suggest 'foo' instead of foz then we'll get a more confusing followup
>>> error if we actually use it.
>>
>> This particular case could be solved by ruling out candidaten of the w
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
>> here a bit.
>
> I'm not so sure. It's only used for printing an error, so walking all
> available decls is expen
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
> here a bit.
I'm not so sure. It's only used for printing an error, so walking all
available decls is expensive but IMHO not too much so.
> I don't want us to suggest using
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Updated patch attached, which is now independent of the rest of the
> patch kit; see below. Various other comments inline.
>
> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 17:30 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10/09/15 22:28, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > There
On 15 September 2015 at 17:38, David Malcolm wrote:
> It would be appropriate to exit as soon as we reach 1 if we agree
> that lookup_name_fuzzy isn't intended to find exact matches (since
> otherwise we might fail to return an exact match if we see a
> distance 1 match first).
>
> I haven't imple
