Hi,
On 07/06/19 22:31, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:20:02PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 07/06/19 22:10, Matthew Beliveau wrote:
@@ -6025,6 +6025,10 @@ warn_about_ambiguous_bases (tree t)
Just a nit, but it seems weird to me that the function implementing
warn_inaccessible_base is named warn_about_ambiguous_bases.
Maybe, but we want to keep the warning's name in sync with clang, and
renaming the function seems like unnecessary noise. I could go either
way.
It's definitely a minor issue. But, given that we have a rationale for
inaccessible_base - I didn't know that - I vote for renaming the
function. A maybe_* name would be appropriate in that case, because the
function doesn't always warn.
Paolo.
