thakis added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18271#381758, @bcraig wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18271#381744, @thakis wrote: > > > FWIW we don't currently use this warning on Chromium because it's way to > > noisy. So something like this looks like a great change to me. > > > > dblaikie, are you aware of any codebases that use this warning in its > > current form? > > > Not dblaikie, but I've used the GCC version of -Wshadow on reasonably large > code bases before. The ctor pattern that this is trying to squelch was > certainly a significant portion of the warnings, particularly when (old) > boost headers got involved. > > I believe that newer versions of boost (~1.50 and newer?) attempt to be > -Wshadow clean in the headers. Did squelching this ctor pattern find any bugs? Do you know if boost would miss the warning firing in this case? http://reviews.llvm.org/D18271 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
