r260124 - Remove dead code.

[Richard Smith via cfe-commits]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Vassil Vassilev <v.g.vassilev at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 08/02/16 20:10, Richard Smith via cfe-commits wrote:
>
>> Author: rsmith
>> Date: Mon Feb  8 13:10:14 2016
>> New Revision: 260124
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260124&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Remove dead code.
>>
>> Modified:
>>      cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp?rev=260124&r1=260123&r2=260124&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp Mon Feb  8 13:10:14 2016
>> @@ -432,10 +432,6 @@ static bool isPreferredLookupResult(Sema
>>       if (Prev == EUnderlying)
>>         return true;
>>     return false;
>> -
>> -  // If the existing declaration is hidden, prefer the new one.
>> Otherwise,
>> -  // keep what we've got.
>> -  return !S.isVisible(Existing);
>>
> Shouldn't we generally prefer the new D if the Existing is hidden?


We do in most cases; see the check a few lines above. This is only reached
for the case of functions and variables, where picking the visible result
can lose information. Note that when forming the set of declarations, we'll
skip hidden results in cases where they're not an acceptable lookup result;
in practice, we only get here for redeclaration lookup of a variable or
function.


>   }
>>     /// Determine whether \p D can hide a tag declaration.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160208/bd6e33a0/attachment.html>