alexfh added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35941#838633, @rsmith wrote:
> 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}; > } > Good to know! > 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. Sounds reasonable. 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
