modocache added a comment.
Thank you for the review!
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/exceptions.cpp:25
+ int ref = k;
+ }
int j = i; // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'i'}}
----------------
riccibruno wrote:
> I am wondering if there is already a test which checks systematically that a
> declaration which shadows another declaration is valid/invalid. I am not
> seeing such a systematic test, but it might be a nice addition (though that
> it clearly out of scope for this patch)
That's a good point. I was very surprised when I learned that my original patch
had broken the lookup behavior described in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41171 but still passed all the tests in
`check-clang`. I'll try to follow up this patch with some more comprehensive
tests.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59752/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59752
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
