rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/FixIt/fixit-cxx0x.cpp:57
(void)[&, &i, &i]{}; // expected-error 2{{'&' cannot precede a capture when
the capture default is '&'}}
- (void)[=, this]{ this->g(5); }; // expected-error{{'this' cannot be
explicitly captured}}
(void)[i, i]{ }; // expected-error{{'i' can appear only once in a capture
list}}
----------------
hamzasood wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > hamzasood wrote:
> > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > hamzasood wrote:
> > > > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > > > hamzasood wrote:
> > > > > > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Shouldn't you only be accepting this in C++2a mode?
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure what the system is with allowing future language
> > > > > > > > features as extensions, but I noticed that [*this] capture is
> > > > > > > > allowed as an extension pre-C++17 so I figured it would make
> > > > > > > > sense for [=, this] to also be allowed as an extension (since
> > > > > > > > the proposal mentions how it's meant to increase code clarify
> > > > > > > > in the presence of [*this]).
> > > > > > > Surely there should at least be an on-by-default extension
> > > > > > > warning? The behavior we're using sounds a lot more like we're
> > > > > > > treating this as a bug-fix in the standard than a new feature.
> > > > > > > Richard, can you weigh in here?
> > > > > > The extension warning for this
> > > > > > (ext_equals_this_lambda_capture_cxx2a) is on by default.
> > > > > Why did the diagnostic disappear from this file, then?
> > > > That file is for FixIt hints, which I don't think make much sense for
> > > > an extension warning (and I couldn't find any other extension warnings
> > > > that offer FixIt hints)
> > > Sure, it's reasonable for this specific test to not test the warning.
> > > However, since I don't see anything in this test that actually turns off
> > > the warning, and since you have not in fact added any tests that verify
> > > that the warning is ever turned on, I suspect that it is actually not
> > > being emitted.
> > I'm sorry, I see that you've added an explicit test for the warning, but I
> > still don't understand why the warning is not emitted in this file.
> > -verify normally verifies all diagnostics, and this file is tested with
> > -std=c++11. Is there some special behavior of -fixit that disables
> > warnings, or ignores them in -verify mode?
> Ah okay, now I know what you mean. The line you’re talking about has actually
> been removed completely from the fixit test.
Oh, of course, I should've realized that right away. Sorry for the run-around.
In that case, this all LGTM.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36572
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
