This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C++ PATCH] PR c++/79133


On 8 July 2018 at 01:54, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>> That would make this more consistent with such a shadow warning, but I
>> don't want
>> to use the shadowing wording (which would be easy to do; just set
>> 'shadowed' and do
>> a 'goto inform'), because this isn't shadowing in the precise sense;
>> the shadowing cases
>> are warnings, whereas this is more like the redeclaration errors in
>> the same function.
>
> ... indeed and that annoys me a bit. Not having studied at all c++/79133 so
> far (sorry) it seems a little weird to me that according to the standard we
> have to handle the two types of "shadowing" in different ways, one more
> strict, one less. Thus I would suggest double checking the details of that,
> eventually with Jason too in terms of the actual patch you would like to
> apply.

Well. The PR is about DR 2211 which, in simple terms, says that lambda
parameters
and captures cannot have the same name. See
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2211

That's stricter than -Wshadow, but otherwise equally strict as the
other error cases already handled
in check_local_shadow. So I'll make this error case more consistent
with the others. We already
handle redeclaration errors slightly differently from shadowing
warnings in that function.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]