On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits < > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> rnk updated this revision to Diff 52982. >> rnk marked 3 inline comments as done. >> rnk added a comment. >> >> - Add -Wshadow-all and -Wshadow-field-in-constructor, also address review >> comments >> > > Strikes me as strange that we're adding a new name for a flag that matches > the behavior of GCC's -Wshadow, rather than introducing the better one > under a new name. (that way people already using it would continue to get > the same behavior - people who came from GCC would get the same behavior > they were already getting, etc) > The argument that won out in discussion with rnk was that we want the nice name (-Wshadow) to be usable by default. This won't be the first time our -Wshadow doesn't warn on something that GCC's does; we already suppress warnings on a variable shadowing a function that GCC warns about (or at least, used to).
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
