https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0) > Suggestion on line 5 of a variable which is acutally the return value, and > doesn't exist yet. Better to only suggest alternative as variables that > exist already in scope? The variable's scope begins after its name, so it is already in scope.
