================
@@ -7867,15 +7865,16 @@ void Sema::checkUnusedDeclAttributes(Declarator &D) {
void Sema::DiagnoseUnknownAttribute(const ParsedAttr &AL) {
std::string NormalizedFullName = '\'' + AL.getNormalizedFullName() + '\'';
+ SourceRange NR = AL.getNormalizedRange();
----------------
a-tarasyuk wrote:
> That said, we COULD fixit just the identifier where it is, right?
1. `[[deprecatd]]` - fixit
2. `[[gmp::deprecatd]]` - we could provide a `fix-it`, but since there's no
difference between `::` and a scope introduced via `using`, it might lead to
incorrect suggestions in `using` cases.
3. `[[using gmp: deprecatd, noreturn]]` - not ok, because fixit will be
`gnu::deprecated`
> Since we already know the scope and are correcting within the scope, we can't
> just change the current 'identifier' to what we're suggesting as a fixit? IF
> we limited it that way, it would 'inherit' whatever sort of scoping was
> already there perhaps?
What I was thinking is that if we have information about the `attribute-using
prefix`, we could avoid normalization when suggesting a typo correction (while
still using the scope::attr format in the diagnostic message). Instead, we
could provide two separate fix-its: one for the scope and one for the attribute
name. Not sure if that approach makes sense.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141305
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
