[PING] Re: [PATCH] C++: avoid most reserved words as misspelling suggestions (PR c++/81610 and PR c++/80567)

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>]

Ping

On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 13:12 -0500, David Malcolm 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.co
> > m>
> > 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)
> 
> Thanks
> Dave