https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Apr 1 21:27:55 2015
New Revision: 221814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-04-01 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/56100
* pt.c (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
> I wonder if in such cases would it simply make sense to suppress the warning
> basing on the locations
I think we want to suppress the warning on instantiation e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach 2013-01-24
21:25:09 UTC ---
I guess many warnings can only be given correctly during instantiation because
they depend on the actual arguments.
But shadowing is not one of them as the set of identifie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-24
21:14:51 UTC ---
I think this is an artifact of warning during instantiation rather than at
definition time.
