From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 0D5F23858C78; Thu,  8 Feb 2024 20:29:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0D5F23858C78
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707424197;
	bh=o310YTriYlKK40u5zpwFN5sp8vNzKN1Wwa5Rpzx7XQo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bz6FExr8DRIF+RsrBQOe+jo21yFyyDz1TaZb/1Ej5BJ3TqHLvA2xKMN5GbbiQ7W4d
	 aASGMHef+rQRHkqmERoHmHdhWN64MimWo71arVIMyzCzPdURPP5ys9a9jQXvNvwBb1
	 /BuwqBCEnvkRWknSbeTLGPtEMUSHxOhBB1fgwmzw=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113839] misleading syntax error message
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:29:55 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113839-4-8armdhyqoV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113839-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113839-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113839

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Frank Heckenbach from comment #0)
> While I appreciate gcc trying to by helpful, it seems it goes wrong rather
> often.

That doesn't match my experience. The errors that mention a specific grammar
production tend to be accurate, with the odd exception like this bug (which
will get fixed).

I find the problem is that telling the user that a particular grammar
production (like "unqualified-id" or "primary-expression") is expected isn't
really helpful to the layperson who doesn't memorize the BNF-like grammar in
the standard. Clang tends to do a better job in that regard, balancing accu=
racy
with comprehensibility.

If you encounter cases where a diagnostic is misleading, wrong, or just
unhelpfully technical in its wording, please do report them so they can be
improved.=