[cfe-dev] Proposal: -Wshadow-field flag

[David Blaikie]

FWIW I'd be a bit concerned that this warning, while it might have a good
false positive rate on a codebase with the particular idioms you've
described, would have a false positive rate a bit too high for a normal
diagnostic bar.

Only one way to find out, though.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this would be a great addition! In general, -Wshadow fires in a
>>> lot of situations, and I think having more granularity here is helpful for
>>> users.
>>>
>>
>> Note that -Wshadow doesn't diagnose this specific case, so my proposal
>> isn't really a subset of -Wshadow.
>>
>
> Right, this sounds like a new and useful warning by itself.
>
> I was mostly saying this seems like the right direction. The existing
> checks under -Wshadow are both too little and too much. Having more checks
> and more granular flags will help us explore the space.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150421/333e69c7/attachment.html>