================
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -std=c++11 -Wignored-qualifiers -verify
+
+class A { };
+
+typedef const A A_Const;
+class B : public A_Const { }; // expected-warning {{'const' qualifier on base
class type 'A_Const' (aka 'const A') have no effect}} \
+ // expected-note {{base class 'A_Const' (aka
'const A') specified here}}
+
+typedef const volatile A A_Const_Volatile;
+class C : public A_Const_Volatile { }; // expected-warning {{'const volatile'
qualifiers on base class type 'A_Const_Volatile' (aka 'const volatile A') have
no effect}} \
+ // expected-note {{base class
'A_Const_Volatile' (aka 'const volatile A') specified here}}
+
+struct D {
+ D(int);
+};
+template <typename T> struct E : T {
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
I would like us to, at least at first? Is the diagnostic reasonable?
My fear of course is that this ends up being SUPER noisy here in the template
case, but I would like to get feedback on this. We could potentially split the
template-case into a separate diagnostic group to make it easier to suppress.
That said, your current cutout for this is likely insufficient. What if this
was: `struct E : T::type` where that has a const on it?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121419
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
