rsmith added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35941#823524, @alexfh wrote:
> IIUC, most cases where -Wshadow warnings are issued is when a declaration
> from an enclosing scope would be accessible if there was no declaration that
> shadows it. In this case the the local variable of a function would not be
> accessible inside the local class anyway
That's not strictly true; the variable can be accessed in unevaluated operands,
and in code doing so, a `-Wshadow` warning might (theoretically) be useful:
void f(SomeComplexType val) {
struct A {
decltype(val) &ref;
void g(int val) {
decltype(val) *p = &ref;
}
} a = {val};
}
That said, suppressing the warning seems like a good thing in the common case.
We've discussed the idea of deferring some `-Wshadow` warnings until we see a
use; if someone cares about this case, we could consider warning only if the
shadowed variable is actually used in an unevaluated operand.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35941
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
