erichkeane wrote:
> > The more I think about it, the more I think that we should modify the
> > warning to only happen on EXPLICIT qualifiers. So:
> > ```
> > struct Base{};
> > using CBase = const Base;
> >
> > struct D1 : const Base {}; // DOES warn
> > struct D2 : CBase{}; // a DIFFERENT warning (same wording perhaps?) under a
> > different group.
> > template<typename T> Templ: const T{};
> > Templ<Base> t; // Causes same warning as D1.
> > template<typename T> Templ2 : T{};
> > Templ2<CBase> t; // Causes same warning as D2.
> > ```
>
> Adding qualifiers directly in base specifiers is invalid (and all major
> compilers correctly reject this). See grammar in
> [[class.derived.general]/1](https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4950/class.derived#general-1).
> Qualifiers can indirectly come from `decltype`, template parameters, type
> aliases and so on.
Ah, cool. I didn't realize we rejected that already. Then I think adding this
to a new flag is sufficient, so probably OK after Aaron + My comments are
addressed.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132116
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
