rjmccall added a comment. In D60573#1463641 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60573#1463641>, @riccibruno wrote:
> In D60573#1463569 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60573#1463569>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Hmm. Does this never impact code that's just using a locally-defined type > > within its scope? I guess if ADL is involved, unqualified lookup must have > > reached the scope of the innermost namespace, and so it would be searching > > that namespace anyway. > > > > In that case, I think I'm mollified that the source-compatibility risk is > > low and we should just unconditionally apply the new rule. LGTM. > > > I am not sure about what you mean. It is certainly possible to construct a > piece of C++11 code which breaks with this patch. Yes, but these examples are contrived, so it's easy to rationalize that the source impact is low. The typical use-pattern of a local type is that you only use it locally, so the most important question would be whether it is possible to change the semantics of, say, void test() { struct A { ... }; foo(A{}); } But I think the answer is "no", for the reasons I explained. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60573/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60573 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
