rsmith added a comment. In D146897#4249300 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146897#4249300>, @rjmccall wrote:
> The third idea seems like a valuable warning, but it's basically a > *different* warning and shouldn't be lumped into this one. I understand the > instinct to carve it out here so that we don't regress on warning about it, > but I think we should just do it separately. And we should do it much more > generally, because there's no reason that logic is limited to just these > specific compound operators, or in fact to any individual operator; we should > probably warn about all inconsistent references to the same variable within a > single statement. Yeah, good point; I'm convinced. > (I'd draw the line at statement boundaries, though, because requiring > function-wide consistency could be really noisy.) At least, I don't think we should warn if both `a` and `this->a` are used in different statements in the same function, and `a` is shadowed by a local declaration wherever `this->a` is used, and I think it might be reasonable to not warn on a member `a` if the name `a` is ever declared in the function regardless of where it's in scope. For the remaining cases, where `a` is never declared locally, I suspect the false positive rate for warning if the function uses both `a` and `this->a` would be lower, but we could probably get some data on that pretty easily. Speaking of data, it'd be nice to get some evidence that this is a mistake that actually happens before landing a dedicated warning for it :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146897/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146897 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
