================
@@ -8236,11 +8236,14 @@ void Sema::CheckShadow(NamedDecl *D, NamedDecl
*ShadowedDecl,
DeclContext *NewDC = D->getDeclContext();
if (FieldDecl *FD = dyn_cast<FieldDecl>(ShadowedDecl)) {
- // Fields are not shadowed by variables in C++ static methods.
- if (CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(NewDC))
+ if (CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(NewDC)) {
+ // Fields are not shadowed by variables in C++ static methods.
if (MD->isStatic())
return;
+ if (!MD->getParent()->isLambda() && MD->isExplicitObjectMemberFunction())
+ return;
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
> Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In such cases
>
> ```c++
> struct C {
> int b = 5;
> int foo() {
> return [a = b]() {
> return [=, b = a]() {
> return b;
> }();
> }();
> }
> };
> ```
>
> depending exclusively on `isExplicitObjectMemberFunction` isn’t safe, as it
> could lead to assertion failures during type resolution
Er, can you elaborate what the problem here is maybe?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114813
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
