| Message ID | 1461853698-43954-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:28:15AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > This is a resend of a patch kit I sent in stage 3; the original post > was here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01933.html > > I've rebased the patches against yesterday's trunk and retested them. > > They add various fix-it hints to existing diagnostics (PR 62314 is a > catch-all for adding fix-its). > > The first patch in the kit adds a fix-it insertion hint for missing > "template <> " in explicit specializations, and improves the > reported range of the type name by capturing the full range, rather > than just one token within it. > > I note that clang (http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html) suggests > inserting > template<> > whereas our diagnostic talks about > template <> > hence I have the fixit suggest inserting that. Should we change our > wording instead, and lose the space? Selfishly I'd prefer to lose the space on the grounds all the other projects I work on don't put one there and gcc is inconsistant about it. That said assuming there are projects that put a space there it seems unfortunate we need to pick one which will definitely be suboptimal for some people. Trev
On 04/28/2016 10:30 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:28:15AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: >> This is a resend of a patch kit I sent in stage 3; the original post >> was here: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01933.html >> >> I've rebased the patches against yesterday's trunk and retested them. >> >> They add various fix-it hints to existing diagnostics (PR 62314 is a >> catch-all for adding fix-its). >> >> The first patch in the kit adds a fix-it insertion hint for missing >> "template <> " in explicit specializations, and improves the >> reported range of the type name by capturing the full range, rather >> than just one token within it. >> >> I note that clang (http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html) suggests >> inserting >> template<> >> whereas our diagnostic talks about >> template <> >> hence I have the fixit suggest inserting that. Should we change our >> wording instead, and lose the space? > > Selfishly I'd prefer to lose the space on the grounds all the other > projects I work on don't put one there and gcc is inconsistant about it. The C++ standard is also inconsistent, sadly. The C++ patches are all OK. Jason
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c index 98a0cd4..ff16f73 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c @@ -21655,6 +21655,8 @@ cp_parser_class_head (cp_parser* parser, if (class_key == none_type) return error_mark_node; + location_t class_head_start_location = input_location; + /* Parse the attributes. */ attributes = cp_parser_attributes_opt (parser); @@ -21871,8 +21873,20 @@ cp_parser_class_head (cp_parser* parser, && parser->num_template_parameter_lists == 0 && template_id_p) { - error_at (type_start_token->location, - "an explicit specialization must be preceded by %<template <>%>"); + /* Build a location of this form: + struct typename <ARGS> + ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + with caret==start at the start token, and + finishing at the end of the type. */ + location_t reported_loc + = make_location (class_head_start_location, + class_head_start_location, + get_finish (type_start_token->location)); + rich_location richloc (line_table, reported_loc); + richloc.add_fixit_insert (class_head_start_location, "template <> "); + error_at_rich_loc + (&richloc, + "an explicit specialization must be preceded by %<template <>%>"); invalid_explicit_specialization_p = true; /* Take the same action that would have been taken by cp_parser_explicit_specialization. */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62314.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62314.C new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ebe75ec --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62314.C @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +// { dg-options "-fdiagnostics-show-caret" } + +template <typename T> +struct iterator_traits {}; + +struct file_iterator; + +struct iterator_traits<file_iterator> { // { dg-error "explicit specialization must be preceded by .template" } +}; + +/* Verify that we emit a fixit hint for this case. */ + +/* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" } + struct iterator_traits<file_iterator> + ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + template <> + { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */