On 9/4/23 13:18, priour...@gmail.com wrote:
From: benjamin priour <vultk...@gcc.gnu.org>
Hi,
This patch was the first I wrote and had been
at that time returned to me because ill-formatted.
Getting busy with other things, I forgot about it.
I've now fixed the formatting.
Succesfully regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu off trunk
a7d052b3200c7928d903a0242b8cfd75d131e374.
Is it OK for trunk ?
Thanks,
Benjamin.
Patch below.
---
Add a new warning for name-hiding. When a class's field
is named similarly to one inherited, a warning should
be issued.
This new warning is controlled by the existing Wshadow.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/12341
* search.cc (lookup_member):
New optional parameter to preempt processing the
inheritance tree deeper than necessary.
(lookup_field): Likewise.
(dfs_walk_all): Likewise.
* cp-tree.h: Update the above declarations.
* class.cc: (warn_name_hiding): New function.
(finish_struct_1): Call warn_name_hiding if -Wshadow.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/12341
* g++.dg/pr12341-1.C: New file.
* g++.dg/pr12341-2.C: New file.
Signed-off-by: benjamin priour <vultk...@gcc.gnu.org>
---
gcc/cp/class.cc | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/cp/cp-tree.h | 9 ++--
gcc/cp/search.cc | 28 ++++++++----
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr12341-1.C | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr12341-2.C | 34 +++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr12341-1.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr12341-2.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/class.cc b/gcc/cp/class.cc
index 778759237dc..b1c59c392a0 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/class.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/class.cc
@@ -3080,6 +3080,79 @@ warn_hidden (tree t)
}
}
+/* Warn about non-static fields name hiding. */
+
+static void
+warn_name_hiding (tree t)
+{
+ if (is_empty_class (t) || CLASSTYPE_NEARLY_EMPTY_P (t))
+ return;
+
+ for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (t); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field))
+ {
+ /* Skip if field is not an user-defined non-static data member. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL || DECL_ARTIFICIAL (field))
+ continue;
+
+ unsigned j;
+ tree name = DECL_NAME (field);
+ /* Skip if field is anonymous. */
+ if (!name || !identifier_p (name))
+ continue;
+
+ auto_vec<tree> base_vardecls;
+ tree binfo;
+ tree base_binfo;
+ /* Iterate through all of the base classes looking for possibly
+ shadowed non-static data members. */
+ for (binfo = TYPE_BINFO (t), j = 0;
+ BINFO_BASE_ITERATE (binfo, j, base_binfo); j++)
Rather than iterate through the bases here, maybe add a mode to
lookup_member/lookup_field_r that skips the most derived type, e.g. by
adding that as a flag in lookup_field_info?
Probably instead of the once_suffices stuff?
+ if (base_vardecl)
+ {
+ auto_diagnostic_group d;
+ if (warning_at (location_of (field), OPT_Wshadow,
+ "%qD might shadow %qD", field, base_vardecl))
Why "might"? We can give a correct answer, we shouldn't settle for an
approximation.
Jason
