rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:6417-6425
@@ +6416,11 @@
+ if (isa<CXXConstructorDecl>(NewDC) && isa<ParmVarDecl>(D)) {
+ if (Diags.isIgnored(diag::warn_ctor_parm_shadows_field, R.getNameLoc()))
{
+ D = D->getCanonicalDecl();
+ ShadowingDecls.insert({D, FD});
+ } else {
+ Diag(R.getNameLoc(), diag::warn_ctor_parm_shadows_field)
+ << D << FD << FD->getParent();
+ Diag(FD->getLocation(), diag::note_previous_declaration);
+ }
+ return;
+ }
----------------
I would prefer for us to produce the -Wshadow "modifying shadowed" warning
where it applies, even when -Wshadow-all is enabled. The usual model is to act
as if -W* flags are just a filter over the diagnostic output, and this diverges
from that.
Is the goal to ensure that -Wshadow-field-in-constructor diagnoses all
constructor parameter / field shadowing, even if -Wshadow is not enabled?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18271
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
