https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Gael Guennebaud gael.guennebaud at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gael Guennebaud from comment #15)
-Wshadow still trigger false positive when a base member functions is
imported with the using keyword, as in the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri Aug 22 19:12:46 2014
New Revision: 214357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214357root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2014-08-22 Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com wrote:
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use cannot harm as it causes other
errors. And clang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 31248
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31248action=edit
Comment 7 patch as a file
I still get both warnings, applied the patch to:
g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Something has changed in the C++ FE in the meanwhile. Could you try with this
one?
Index: name-lookup.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31248|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
clang does no warn on var_and_method as variable vs. method are safe, if one
tries to use them inappropriately one gets an error.
Not always. Think of function pointers or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
It may not be exactly correct but from a practical standpoint clang has caught
my bug while not annoying me with tons of needless changes like gcc did, FYI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
That would be fine. But it seems less important for member functions, since
there's much less chance of a local variable name
16 matches
Mail list logo
