[PATCH] D51333: Diagnose likely typos in include statements

[Richard Smith - zygoloid via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

rsmith added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51333#1220878, @christylee wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51333#1219938, @rsmith wrote:
>
> > Instead of guessing whether the corrected filename would be valid, why not strip off the leading and trailing non-alphanumeric characters, look up the resulting filename, and find out? If we did that, then not only could we be a lot more confident that we'd found the file that was intended, but we could also recover from the error by including the trimmed filename.
>
>
> Should we lookup the stripped filename and then error out on a warning along the lines of "'<hello,h>' file not found, did you mean 'hello,h'",  or attempt to continue to compile using the file we found (i.e. "hello.h").  I'm learning towards the former because I'm worried the latter might be "too clever", in case the developers actually think <hello.h> and hello.h are two different files.


I think we should issue a (non-fatal) error along the lines of "<hello.h> not found; did you mean "hello.h"?" with a `FixItHint`, and carry on by including the file we believe they meant. The chance of hitting a false positive by doing this seems extremely remote to me, so I'm not worried about it being "too clever" and doing the wrong thing. (You'd not only need for the developer to intend to use a file whose name starts or ends with an odd character, but also for that file to not exist and a file whose name is the same but with said character(s) removed to actually exist.)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D51333