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

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:12 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@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