From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-197959-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 33999 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2019 08:50:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 33984 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jan 2019 08:50:31 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=segher, HCc:U*gcc, tabs, eight
X-HELO: gate.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:50:29 +0000
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x058oP3L016362;	Sat, 5 Jan 2019 02:50:25 -0600
Received: (from segher@localhost)	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x058oOKp016361;	Sat, 5 Jan 2019 02:50:24 -0600
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:50:00 -0000
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marjam=E4ki?= <daniel.marjamaki@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Improve syntax error
Message-ID: <20190105085023.GJ14180@gate.crashing.org>
References: <CAMabPZS3dX=s8vhoqK3zkLG+muc8XGEcWgs-tUs0x5sCBNmKGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMabPZS3dX=s8vhoqK3zkLG+muc8XGEcWgs-tUs0x5sCBNmKGQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2

Hi Daniel,

Some mostly boring comments:

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:25:10PM +0100, Daniel Marjamäki wrote:
> The first reason is the hard problem, but maybe we can ignore this now also:
> 
> void f()
> {
>     }  // <- looking at the indentation, it seems preferable to warn about this
> }

I think the indentation warnings should catch that?

> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> index 972b629c092..eabc5ffa15e 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> @@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ struct GTY(()) c_parser {
>    /* How many look-ahead tokens are available (0 - 4, or
>       more if parsing from pre-lexed tokens).  */
>    unsigned int tokens_avail;
> +  /* nesting depth in expression (parentheses / squares) */

Start sentences with a capital, and end with full stop space space.  I
realise this isn't a full sentence, but the comment right above does this
as well ;-)

> @@ -763,6 +765,22 @@ c_parser_next_tokens_start_declaration (c_parser *parser)
>    return false;
>  }
> 
> +/* Nesting start token */
> +
> +static bool c_parser_is_nesting_start (c_parser *parser)
> +{
> +    return c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN) ||
> +           c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE);

Indents should use tabs for every leading eight spaces.

> @@ -2228,7 +2264,10 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser
> *parser, bool fndef_ok,
>          }
>        else
>          {
> -          c_parser_error (parser, "expected %<,%> or %<;%>");
> +          if (c_parser_unmatched_p (parser))
> +            complain_about_unmatched_token (parser);

Should this say something like "expected ) or , or ;"?

> +          else
> +            c_parser_error (parser, "expected %<,%> or %<;%>");
>            c_parser_skip_to_end_of_block_or_statement (parser);
>            return;
>          }


Segher