On 08/02/16 20:38, Richard Smith wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Vassil Vassilev
<v.g.vassi...@gmail.com <mailto:v.g.vassi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 08/02/16 20:10, Richard Smith via cfe-commits wrote:
Author: rsmith
Date: Mon Feb 8 13:10:14 2016
New Revision: 260124
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260124&view=rev
Log:
Remove dead code.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp
Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp
URL:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp?rev=260124&r1=260123&r2=260124&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp Mon Feb 8 13:10:14 2016
@@ -432,10 +432,6 @@ static bool isPreferredLookupResult(Sema
if (Prev == EUnderlying)
return true;
return false;
-
- // If the existing declaration is hidden, prefer the new
one. Otherwise,
- // keep what we've got.
- return !S.isVisible(Existing);
Shouldn't we generally prefer the new D if the Existing is hidden?
We do in most cases; see the check a few lines above. This is only
reached for the case of functions and variables, where picking the
visible result can lose information. Note that when forming the set of
declarations, we'll skip hidden results in cases where they're not an
acceptable lookup result; in practice, we only get here for
redeclaration lookup of a variable or function.
Got it, thanks!
}
/// Determine whether \p D can hide a tag declaration.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
