On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > 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 <dmalcolm@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.
Thanks; committed (r257456). FWIW, I've filed PR c++/84269 so I remember to fix the missing suggestion for "memset" (in gcc 9 stage1). Dave