http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12294
Johannes Schaub <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub <[email protected]> 2012-03-17 08:54:40 CDT --- I think I see now that "redeclared" here does not mean to actually redeclare that name, but just means to have a declaration declare the same identifier (gcc and clang still allow class names to redeclare it - i.e if I omit "i++", both accept the code. I think I can't explain that behavior). Clause 3.3.3p4 says that these declarations are "local to the for/... loop", which I think means the loop creates an implicit block scope. So I'm closing this, but I would be glad if you could clear up why clang allows the class-name declaration of "i". -- Configure bugmail: http://llvm.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
