From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] C/C++: don't suggest implementation names as spelling fixes (PR c/83236)
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 21:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171201215645.GZ2353@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1512164900-14249-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com>
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 04:48:20PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> PR c/83236 reports an issue where the C FE unhelpfully suggests the use
> of glibc's private "__ino_t" type when it fails to recognize "ino_t":
>
> $ cat > test.c <<EOF
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> ino_t inode;
> EOF
> $ gcc -std=c89 -fsyntax-only test.c
> test.c:2:1: error: unknown type name 'ino_t'; did you mean '__ino_t'?
> ino_t inode;
> ^~~~~
> __ino_t
>
> This patch updates the C/C++ FEs suggestions for unrecognized identifiers
> so that they don't suggest names that are reserved for use by the
> implementation i.e. those that begin with an underscore and either an
> uppercase letter or another underscore.
>
> However, it allows built-in macros that match this pattern to be
> suggested, since it's useful to be able to suggest __FILE__, __LINE__
> etc. Other macros *are* filtered.
>
> One wart with the patch: the existing macro-handling spellcheck code
> is in spellcheck-tree.c, and needs to call the the new function
> "name_reserved_for_implementation_p", however the latter relates to
> the C family of FEs.
> Perhaps I should move all of the the macro-handling stuff in
> spellcheck-tree.h/c to e.g. a new c-family/c-spellcheck.h/c as a
> first step?
>
> Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
> PR c/83236
> * c-decl.c (lookup_name_fuzzy): Don't suggest names that are
> reserved for use by the implementation.
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> PR c/83236
> * name-lookup.c (consider_binding_level): Don't suggest names that
> are reserved for use by the implementation.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR c/83236
> * spellcheck-tree.c (name_reserved_for_implementation_p): New
> function.
> (should_suggest_as_macro_p): New function.
> (find_closest_macro_cpp_cb): Move the check for NT_MACRO to
> should_suggest_as_macro_p and call it.
> (selftest::test_name_reserved_for_implementation_p): New function.
> (selftest::spellcheck_tree_c_tests): Call it.
> * spellcheck-tree.h (name_reserved_for_implementation_p): New
> decl.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> PR c/83236
> * c-c++-common/spellcheck-reserved.c: New test case.
> ---
> gcc/c/c-decl.c | 5 +++
> gcc/cp/name-lookup.c | 18 +++++++---
> gcc/spellcheck-tree.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> gcc/spellcheck-tree.h | 2 ++
> gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/spellcheck-reserved.c | 25 +++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/spellcheck-reserved.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> index 56c63d8..dfd136d 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> @@ -4041,6 +4041,11 @@ lookup_name_fuzzy (tree name, enum lookup_name_fuzzy_kind kind, location_t loc)
> if (TREE_CODE (binding->decl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
> if (C_DECL_IMPLICIT (binding->decl))
> continue;
> + /* Don't suggest names that are reserved for use by the
> + implementation. */
> + if (name_reserved_for_implementation_p
> + (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (binding->id)))
Can't you use a temporary to avoid wrapping line between function
name and ( ?
More importantly, does this mean if I mistype __builtin_strtchr it
won't suggest __builtin_strrchr? Would be nice if the filtering
of the names reserved for implementation isn't done if the
name being looked up is reserved for implementation.
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-01 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-01 21:45 David Malcolm
2017-12-01 21:56 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2017-12-02 0:07 ` [PATCH] v2: " David Malcolm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171201215645.GZ2353@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).