Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 5:29 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:05 PM Michel Morin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:09 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > On 9/21/21 20:53, Michel Morin wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:24 AM Jason Merrill > wrote: > > >> > > >> On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill > wrote: > > > > On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill > wrote: > > >> > > >> On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via > Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, > GCC emits > > > "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean > 'typedef'?". > > > > > > This happens because the typo corrector determines that > `typeof` is a > > > candidate for suggestion (through > > > `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), > > > but `typedef` is not. > > > > > > This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a > candidate. The > > > patch > > > additionally adds the `inline` specifier and > cv-specifiers as a > > > candidate. > > > Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): > > > > Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the > first place). > > > > I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by > > lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), > > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by > > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is > used by > > cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and > cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. > > >>> > > >>> Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. > > >>> I failed to grep those functions somehow. > > >>> > > >>> One thing that confuses me is that > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > > >>> misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. > > >>> typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). > > >>> So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) > > >> > > >> That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. > > > > > > Done. Thanks for your help! > > > > > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but > attributes are > > > not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? > > > > It looks like the place that PR28261 used > > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically > exempts > > attributes: > > > > > && > (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) > > > /* GNU attributes can actually appear both > at the start of > > >a parameter and parenthesized declarator. > > >S (__attribute__((unused)) int); > > >is a constructor, but > > >S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); > > >is a function declaration. */ > > > || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) > > > && > cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) > > > > So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. > I'd keep > > the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 > attributes below. > > >>> > > >>> Done. No regressions introduced. > > >>> > > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but > attributes are > > > not decl-specifiers. > > >>> > > >>> Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are > not a > > >>> decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment > just before > > >>> cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are > considered as a > > >>> decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of > RID_ATTRIBUTE in > > >>> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... > > >> > > >> GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two >
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:05 PM Michel Morin wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:09 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/21/21 20:53, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:24 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits > > "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". > > > > This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a > > candidate for suggestion (through > > `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), > > but `typedef` is not. > > > > This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The > > patch > > additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a > > candidate. > > Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): > > Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). > > I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by > lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by > cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. > >>> > >>> Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. > >>> I failed to grep those functions somehow. > >>> > >>> One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > >>> misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. > >>> typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). > >>> So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) > >> > >> That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. > > > > Done. Thanks for your help! > > > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > > not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? > > It looks like the place that PR28261 used > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts > attributes: > > > && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) > > /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of > > a parameter and parenthesized declarator. > > S (__attribute__((unused)) int); > > is a constructor, but > > S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); > > is a function declaration. */ > > || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) > > && cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) > > So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep > the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. > >>> > >>> Done. No regressions introduced. > >>> > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > > not decl-specifiers. > >>> > >>> Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a > >>> decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before > >>> cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a > >>> decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in > >>> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... > >> > >> GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two callers of > >> cp_parser_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword don't want to treat > >> attributes accordingly. > > > > Makes sense. > > > >> Let's go with both your patches, and also > >> remove the consequently-unnecessary attributes check in > >> cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt: > >> > >>> if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:09 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/21/21 20:53, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:24 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm > >>> wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits > > "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". > > > > This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is > > a > > candidate for suggestion (through > > `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), > > but `typedef` is not. > > > > This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The > > patch > > additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a > > candidate. > > Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): > > Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). > > I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by > lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by > cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and > cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. > >>> > >>> Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. > >>> I failed to grep those functions somehow. > >>> > >>> One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > >>> misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. > >>> typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). > >>> So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) > >> > >> That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. > > > > Done. Thanks for your help! > > > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes > > RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes > > are > > not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? > > It looks like the place that PR28261 used > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts > attributes: > > > && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword > > (parser->lexer) > > /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start > > of > >a parameter and parenthesized declarator. > >S (__attribute__((unused)) int); > >is a constructor, but > >S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); > >is a function declaration. */ > > || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) > > && cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) > > So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep > the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. > >>> > >>> Done. No regressions introduced. > >>> > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes > > RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes > > are > > not decl-specifiers. > >>> > >>> Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a > >>> decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before > >>> cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a > >>> decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in > >>> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... > >> > >> GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two callers of > >> cp_parser_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword don't want to treat > >> attributes accordingly. > > > > Makes sense. > > > >> Let's go with both your patches, and also > >> remove the consequently-unnecessary attributes check in > >> cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt: > >> > >>>if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) > >>>&& !cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser)) > >> > >> OK with that change. > > > > Updated and rebased the patch. No regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin. > > > > Thank you for your help! > > Looks good, thanks. You can push the patches yourself, right? This is my first patch contribution to GCC, and I don't have write access. So it'd be great if someone pushes the patches. I assume these
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On 9/21/21 20:53, Michel Morin wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:24 AM Jason Merrill wrote: On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi, PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a candidate for suggestion (through `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), but `typedef` is not. This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The patch additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a candidate. Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. I failed to grep those functions somehow. One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. Done. Thanks for your help! One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? It looks like the place that PR28261 used cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts attributes: && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of a parameter and parenthesized declarator. S (__attribute__((unused)) int); is a constructor, but S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); is a function declaration. */ || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) && cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. Done. No regressions introduced. One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are not decl-specifiers. Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two callers of cp_parser_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword don't want to treat attributes accordingly. Makes sense. Let's go with both your patches, and also remove the consequently-unnecessary attributes check in cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt: if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) && !cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser)) OK with that change. Updated and rebased the patch. No regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin. Thank you for your help! Looks good, thanks. You can push the patches yourself, right? I've split the patch into two. The first one is for adding missing keywords to fix PR77565 and the second one is for removing the "attribute" keyword. Here is the second patch (if this is not applied, that's no problem ;) ) == c++: adjust the handling of RID_ATTRIBUTE. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Do not handle RID_ATTRIBUTE. (cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Remove now-redundant checks. diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c index 40308d0d33f..d184a3aca7e 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c @@ -1062,7 +1062,6 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid keyword) case RID_TYPEDEF: case RID_INLINE: /* GNU extensions. */ -case RID_ATTRIBUTE: case RID_TYPEOF: /* C++11 extensions. */ case RID_DECLTYPE: @@ -30798,23 +30797,22 @@ cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p (cp_parser *parser, cp_parser_flags flags, /* A parameter declaration begins with a
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:24 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits > >>> "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". > >>> > >>> This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a > >>> candidate for suggestion (through > >>> `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), > >>> but `typedef` is not. > >>> > >>> This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The > >>> patch > >>> additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a > >>> candidate. > >>> Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): > >> > >> Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). > >> > >> I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by > >> lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), > >> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by > >> cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by > >> cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. > > > > Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. > > I failed to grep those functions somehow. > > > > One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > > misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. > > typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). > > So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) > > That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. > >>> > >>> Done. Thanks for your help! > >>> > >>> One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > >>> (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > >>> not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? > >> > >> It looks like the place that PR28261 used > >> cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts > >> attributes: > >> > >>>&& (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword > >>> (parser->lexer) > >>>/* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of > >>> a parameter and parenthesized declarator. > >>> S (__attribute__((unused)) int); > >>> is a constructor, but > >>> S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); > >>> is a function declaration. */ > >>>|| (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) > >>>&& cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) > >> > >> So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep > >> the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. > > > > Done. No regressions introduced. > > > >>> One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > >>> (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > >>> not decl-specifiers. > > > > Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a > > decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before > > cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a > > decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in > > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... > > GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two callers of > cp_parser_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword don't want to treat > attributes accordingly. Makes sense. > Let's go with both your patches, and also > remove the consequently-unnecessary attributes check in > cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt: > > > if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) > > && !cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser)) > > OK with that change. Updated and rebased the patch. No regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin. Thank you for your help! > > > I've split the patch into two. The first one is for adding missing keywords > > to > > fix PR77565 and the second one is for removing the "attribute" keyword. > > Here is the second patch (if this is not applied, that's no problem ;) ) > > > > == > > c++: adjust the handling of RID_ATTRIBUTE. > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Do not > > handle RID_ATTRIBUTE. > > (cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Remove now-redundant > > checks. > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c > > index
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On 9/17/21 13:31, Michel Morin wrote: On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi, PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a candidate for suggestion (through `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), but `typedef` is not. This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The patch additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a candidate. Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. I failed to grep those functions somehow. One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. Done. Thanks for your help! One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? It looks like the place that PR28261 used cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts attributes: && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of a parameter and parenthesized declarator. S (__attribute__((unused)) int); is a constructor, but S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); is a function declaration. */ || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) && cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. Done. No regressions introduced. One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are not decl-specifiers. Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... GNU attributes can appear in lots of places, and the only two callers of cp_parser_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword don't want to treat attributes accordingly. Let's go with both your patches, and also remove the consequently-unnecessary attributes check in cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt: if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) && !cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser)) OK with that change. I've split the patch into two. The first one is for adding missing keywords to fix PR77565 and the second one is for removing the "attribute" keyword. Here is the second patch (if this is not applied, that's no problem ;) ) == c++: adjust the handling of RID_ATTRIBUTE. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Do not handle RID_ATTRIBUTE. (cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Remove now-redundant checks. diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c index 40308d0d33f..d184a3aca7e 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c @@ -1062,7 +1062,6 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid keyword) case RID_TYPEDEF: case RID_INLINE: /* GNU extensions. */ -case RID_ATTRIBUTE: case RID_TYPEOF: /* C++11 extensions. */ case RID_DECLTYPE: @@ -30798,23 +30797,22 @@ cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p (cp_parser *parser, cp_parser_flags flags, /* A parameter declaration begins with a decl-specifier, which is either the "attribute" keyword, a storage class specifier, or (usually) a type-specifier. */ - && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) - /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of - a parameter and
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits > > "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?". > > > > This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a > > candidate for suggestion (through > > `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`), > > but `typedef` is not. > > > > This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The > > patch > > additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a > > candidate. > > Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin): > > Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place). > > I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by > lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p), > cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by > cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. > >>> > >>> Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out. > >>> I failed to grep those functions somehow. > >>> > >>> One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p > >>> misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g. > >>> typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual). > >>> So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;) > >> > >> That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well. > > > > Done. Thanks for your help! > > > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > > not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this? > > It looks like the place that PR28261 used > cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts > attributes: > > > && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) > > /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of > > a parameter and parenthesized declarator. > > S (__attribute__((unused)) int); > > is a constructor, but > > S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); > > is a function declaration. */ > > || (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser) > > && cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser))) > > So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep > the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below. Done. No regressions introduced. > > One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE > > (from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are > > not decl-specifiers. Oh, this is wrong. I thought that, since C++11 attributes are not a decl-specifier, neither are GNU attributes. But the comment just before cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq says that GNU attributes are considered as a decl-specifier. So I'm not confident about the removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE in cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p... I've split the patch into two. The first one is for adding missing keywords to fix PR77565 and the second one is for removing the "attribute" keyword. Here is the second patch (if this is not applied, that's no problem ;) ) == c++: adjust the handling of RID_ATTRIBUTE. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Do not handle RID_ATTRIBUTE. (cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Remove now-redundant checks. diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c index 40308d0d33f..d184a3aca7e 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c @@ -1062,7 +1062,6 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid keyword) case RID_TYPEDEF: case RID_INLINE: /* GNU extensions. */ -case RID_ATTRIBUTE: case RID_TYPEOF: /* C++11 extensions. */ case RID_DECLTYPE: @@ -30798,23 +30797,22 @@ cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p (cp_parser *parser, cp_parser_flags flags, /* A parameter declaration begins with a decl-specifier, which is either the "attribute" keyword, a storage class specifier, or (usually) a type-specifier. */ - && (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer) - /* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of - a parameter and parenthesized declarator. - S (__attribute__((unused)) int); - is a constructor, but - S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int); - is a function declaration. */ - ||
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On 9/16/21 11:50, Michel Morin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
"did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
candidate for suggestion (through
`cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
but `typedef` is not.
This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The
patch
additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a
candidate.
Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place).
I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by
lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p),
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by
cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by
cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p.
Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out.
I failed to grep those functions somehow.
One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p
misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g.
typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual).
So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;)
That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well.
Done. Thanks for your help!
One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE
(from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are
not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this?
It looks like the place that PR28261 used
cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword specifically exempts
attributes:
&& (!cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword (parser->lexer)
/* GNU attributes can actually appear both at the start of
a parameter and parenthesized declarator.
S (__attribute__((unused)) int);
is a constructor, but
S (__attribute__((unused)) foo) (int);
is a function declaration. */
|| (cp_parser_allow_gnu_extensions_p (parser)
&& cp_next_tokens_can_be_gnu_attribute_p (parser)))
So yes, let's remove RID_ATTRIBUTE and the || clause there. I'd keep
the comment, but move it to go with the test for C++11 attributes below.
Both patches (with and without removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE) attached.
No regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin.
Regards,
Michel
So I'm not sure if this fix is exactly correct - hopefully one of the
C++ frontend maintainers can chime in. If
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p isn't quite the right place for
this, the fix could probably go in suggest_rid_p instead, which *is*
specific to spelling corrections.
Hope this is constructive; thanks again for the patch
Dave
c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
PR c++/77565
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid
keyword)
case RID_FLOAT:
case RID_DOUBLE:
case RID_VOID:
+ /* CV qualifiers. */
+case RID_CONST:
+case RID_VOLATILE:
+ /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
+case RID_TYPEDEF:
+case RID_INLINE:
/* GNU extensions. */
case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
case RID_TYPEOF:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
@@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does
not
name a type; did you mean 's
^~
signed
{ dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
did you mean 'typedef'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ typdef int my_int;
+ ^~
+ typedef
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ inlien int inline_func();
+ ^~
+ inline
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
did you mean 'const'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ coonst int ci = 0;
+ ^~
+ const
+ {
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:44 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
> >>> "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
> >>>
> >>> This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
> >>> candidate for suggestion (through
> >>> `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
> >>> but `typedef` is not.
> >>>
> >>> This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The
> >>> patch
> >>> additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a
> >>> candidate.
> >>> Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
> >>
> >> Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place).
> >>
> >> I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by
> >> lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p),
> >> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by
> >> cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by
> >> cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p.
> >
> > Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out.
> > I failed to grep those functions somehow.
> >
> > One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p
> > misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g.
> > typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual).
> > So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;)
>
> That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well.
Done. Thanks for your help!
One more thing — cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p includes RID_ATTRIBUTE
(from the beginning; see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR28261 ), but attributes are
not decl-specifiers. Would it be reasonable to remove this?
Both patches (with and without removal of RID_ATTRIBUTE) attached.
No regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin.
Regards,
Michel
> >> So I'm not sure if this fix is exactly correct - hopefully one of the
> >> C++ frontend maintainers can chime in. If
> >> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p isn't quite the right place for
> >> this, the fix could probably go in suggest_rid_p instead, which *is*
> >> specific to spelling corrections.
> >>
> >> Hope this is constructive; thanks again for the patch
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
> >>>
> >>> PR c++/77565
> >>>
> >>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >>>
> >>> * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
> >>> typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
> >>>
> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>>
> >>> * g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
> >>>
> >>> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >>> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >>> @@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid
> >>> keyword)
> >>> case RID_FLOAT:
> >>> case RID_DOUBLE:
> >>> case RID_VOID:
> >>> + /* CV qualifiers. */
> >>> +case RID_CONST:
> >>> +case RID_VOLATILE:
> >>> + /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
> >>> +case RID_TYPEDEF:
> >>> +case RID_INLINE:
> >>> /* GNU extensions. */
> >>> case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
> >>> case RID_TYPEOF:
> >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> >>> @@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does
> >>> not
> >>> name a type; did you mean 's
> >>>^~
> >>>signed
> >>> { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>> +
> >>> +typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
> >>> did you mean 'typedef'?" }
> >>> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> >>> + typdef int my_int;
> >>> + ^~
> >>> + typedef
> >>> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>> +
> >>> +inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
> >>> type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
> >>> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> >>> + inlien int inline_func();
> >>> + ^~
> >>> + inline
> >>> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>> +
> >>> +coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
> >>> did you mean 'const'?" }
> >>> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> >>> + coonst int ci = 0;
> >>> + ^~
> >>> + const
> >>> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>> +
> >>> +voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did
> >>> you mean 'volatile'?" }
> >>> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> >>> + voltil int vi;
> >>> + ^~
> >>> + volatile
> >>> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>> +
> >>> +statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did
> >>> you mean 'static'?" }
> >>> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> >>> + statik int si;
> >>> + ^~
> >>> + static
> >>> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >>>
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On 9/14/21 04:29, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
"did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
candidate for suggestion (through
`cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
but `typedef` is not.
This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The
patch
additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a
candidate.
Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place).
I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by
lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p),
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by
cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by
cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p.
Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out.
I failed to grep those functions somehow.
One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p
misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g.
typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual).
So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;)
That is strange. Let's add all the rest of them as well.
So I'm not sure if this fix is exactly correct - hopefully one of the
C++ frontend maintainers can chime in. If
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p isn't quite the right place for
this, the fix could probably go in suggest_rid_p instead, which *is*
specific to spelling corrections.
Hope this is constructive; thanks again for the patch
Dave
c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
PR c++/77565
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid
keyword)
case RID_FLOAT:
case RID_DOUBLE:
case RID_VOID:
+ /* CV qualifiers. */
+case RID_CONST:
+case RID_VOLATILE:
+ /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
+case RID_TYPEDEF:
+case RID_INLINE:
/* GNU extensions. */
case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
case RID_TYPEOF:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
@@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does
not
name a type; did you mean 's
^~
signed
{ dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
did you mean 'typedef'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ typdef int my_int;
+ ^~
+ typedef
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ inlien int inline_func();
+ ^~
+ inline
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
did you mean 'const'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ coonst int ci = 0;
+ ^~
+ const
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did
you mean 'volatile'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ voltil int vi;
+ ^~
+ volatile
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did
you mean 'static'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ statik int si;
+ ^~
+ static
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
--
Regards,
Michel
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:14 AM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
> > "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
> >
> > This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
> > candidate for suggestion (through
> > `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
> > but `typedef` is not.
> >
> > This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The
> > patch
> > additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a
> > candidate.
> > Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
>
> Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place).
>
> I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by
> lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p),
> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by
> cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by
> cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p.
Ah, you're right! Thank you for pointing this out.
I failed to grep those functions somehow.
One thing that confuses me is that cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p
misses many keywords that can start decl-specifiers (e.g.
typedef/inline/cv-qual and friend/explicit/virtual).
So let's wait C++ frontend maintainers ;)
Regards,
Michel
> So I'm not sure if this fix is exactly correct - hopefully one of the
> C++ frontend maintainers can chime in. If
> cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p isn't quite the right place for
> this, the fix could probably go in suggest_rid_p instead, which *is*
> specific to spelling corrections.
>
> Hope this is constructive; thanks again for the patch
> Dave
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
> >
> > PR c++/77565
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
> > typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
> >
> > --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> > @@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid
> > keyword)
> > case RID_FLOAT:
> > case RID_DOUBLE:
> > case RID_VOID:
> > + /* CV qualifiers. */
> > +case RID_CONST:
> > +case RID_VOLATILE:
> > + /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
> > +case RID_TYPEDEF:
> > +case RID_INLINE:
> >/* GNU extensions. */
> > case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
> > case RID_TYPEOF:
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> > @@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does
> > not
> > name a type; did you mean 's
> > ^~
> > signed
> > { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > +
> > +typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
> > did you mean 'typedef'?" }
> > +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > + typdef int my_int;
> > + ^~
> > + typedef
> > + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > +
> > +inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
> > type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
> > +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > + inlien int inline_func();
> > + ^~
> > + inline
> > + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > +
> > +coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
> > did you mean 'const'?" }
> > +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > + coonst int ci = 0;
> > + ^~
> > + const
> > + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > +
> > +voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did
> > you mean 'volatile'?" }
> > +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > + voltil int vi;
> > + ^~
> > + volatile
> > + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > +
> > +statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did
> > you mean 'static'?" }
> > +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > + statik int si;
> > + ^~
> > + static
> > + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Michel
>
>
Re: [PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 03:35 +0900, Michel Morin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
> "did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
>
> This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
> candidate for suggestion (through
> `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
> but `typedef` is not.
>
> This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The
> patch
> additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a
> candidate.
> Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
Thanks for this patch (and for reporting the bug in the first place).
I notice that, as well as being used for fix-it hints by
lookup_name_fuzzy (indirectly via suggest_rid_p),
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p is also used by
cp_lexer_next_token_is_decl_specifier_keyword, which is used by
cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt and cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p.
So I'm not sure if this fix is exactly correct - hopefully one of the
C++ frontend maintainers can chime in. If
cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p isn't quite the right place for
this, the fix could probably go in suggest_rid_p instead, which *is*
specific to spelling corrections.
Hope this is constructive; thanks again for the patch
Dave
>
>
> c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
>
> PR c++/77565
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
> typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
>
> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> @@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid
> keyword)
> case RID_FLOAT:
> case RID_DOUBLE:
> case RID_VOID:
> + /* CV qualifiers. */
> + case RID_CONST:
> + case RID_VOLATILE:
> + /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
> + case RID_TYPEDEF:
> + case RID_INLINE:
> /* GNU extensions. */
> case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
> case RID_TYPEOF:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
> @@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does
> not
> name a type; did you mean 's
> ^~
> signed
> { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> +
> +typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
> did you mean 'typedef'?" }
> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> + typdef int my_int;
> + ^~
> + typedef
> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> +
> +inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
> type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> + inlien int inline_func();
> + ^~
> + inline
> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> +
> +coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
> did you mean 'const'?" }
> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> + coonst int ci = 0;
> + ^~
> + const
> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> +
> +voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did
> you mean 'volatile'?" }
> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> + voltil int vi;
> + ^~
> + volatile
> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> +
> +statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did
> you mean 'static'?" }
> +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> + statik int si;
> + ^~
> + static
> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Michel
[PATCH] c++: fix wrong fixit hints for misspelled typedef [PR77565]
Hi,
PR77565 reports that, with the code `typdef int Int;`, GCC emits
"did you mean 'typeof'?" instead of "did you mean 'typedef'?".
This happens because the typo corrector determines that `typeof` is a
candidate for suggestion (through `cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p`),
but `typedef` is not.
This patch fixes the issue by adding `typedef` as a candidate. The patch
additionally adds the `inline` specifier and cv-specifiers as a candidate.
Here is a patch (tests `make check-gcc` pass on darwin):
c++: add typo corrections for typedef/inline/cv-qual [PR77565]
PR c++/77565
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p): Handle
typedef/inline specifiers and cv-qualifiers.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C: Add tests for decl-specs.
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid keyword)
case RID_FLOAT:
case RID_DOUBLE:
case RID_VOID:
+ /* CV qualifiers. */
+case RID_CONST:
+case RID_VOLATILE:
+ /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
+case RID_TYPEDEF:
+case RID_INLINE:
/* GNU extensions. */
case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
case RID_TYPEOF:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
@@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does not
name a type; did you mean 's
^~
signed
{ dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type;
did you mean 'typedef'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ typdef int my_int;
+ ^~
+ typedef
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a
type; did you mean 'inline'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ inlien int inline_func();
+ ^~
+ inline
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type;
did you mean 'const'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ coonst int ci = 0;
+ ^~
+ const
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did
you mean 'volatile'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ voltil int vi;
+ ^~
+ volatile
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did
you mean 'static'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ statik int si;
+ ^~
+ static
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
--
Regards,
Michel
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
index f9c2c8ac3a7..5295911eb82 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ cp_keyword_starts_decl_specifier_p (enum rid keyword)
case RID_FLOAT:
case RID_DOUBLE:
case RID_VOID:
+ /* CV qualifiers. */
+case RID_CONST:
+case RID_VOLATILE:
+ /* typedef/inline specifiers. */
+case RID_TYPEDEF:
+case RID_INLINE:
/* GNU extensions. */
case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
case RID_TYPEOF:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
index ff53ecc6303..75f80480e16 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/spellcheck-typenames.C
@@ -76,3 +76,38 @@ singed char ch; // { dg-error "1: 'singed' does not name a
type; did you mean 's
^~
signed
{ dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+typdef int my_int; // { dg-error "1: 'typdef' does not name a type; did you
mean 'typedef'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ typdef int my_int;
+ ^~
+ typedef
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+inlien int inline_func(); // { dg-error "1: 'inlien' does not name a type; did
you mean 'inline'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ inlien int inline_func();
+ ^~
+ inline
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+coonst int ci = 0; // { dg-error "1: 'coonst' does not name a type; did you
mean 'const'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ coonst int ci = 0;
+ ^~
+ const
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+voltil int vi; // { dg-error "1: 'voltil' does not name a type; did you mean
'volatile'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ voltil int vi;
+ ^~
+ volatile
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
+
+statik int si; // { dg-error "1: 'statik' does not name a type; did you mean
'static'?" }
+/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
+ statik int si;
+ ^~
+ static
+ { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
