[PATCH] D18271: Avoid -Wshadow warnings about constructor parameters named after fields

Richard Smith via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Apr 7 17:18:02 PDT 2016

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> rnk updated this revision to Diff 52982.
>> rnk marked 3 inline comments as done.
>> rnk added a comment.
>> - Add -Wshadow-all and -Wshadow-field-in-constructor, also address review
>> comments
> Strikes me as strange that we're adding a new name for a flag that matches
> the behavior of GCC's -Wshadow, rather than introducing the better one
> under a new name. (that way people already using it would continue to get
> the same behavior - people who came from GCC would get the same behavior
> they were already getting, etc)

The argument that won out in discussion with rnk was that we want the nice
name (-Wshadow) to be usable by default. This won't be the first time our
-Wshadow doesn't warn on something that GCC's does; we already suppress
warnings on a variable shadowing a function that GCC warns about (or at
least, used to).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160407/82e65319/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list