https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Gael Guennebaud from comment #15)
> -Wshadow still trigger false positive when a base member functions is
> imported with the "using" keyword, as in the following example (tested with
> gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Gael Guennebaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gael.guennebaud at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri Aug 22 19:12:46 2014
New Revision: 214357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2014-08-22 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/577
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com wrote:
> Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
> now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use cannot harm as it causes other
errors. And clang also does not warn on it.
int main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31248|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Something has changed in the C++ FE in the meanwhile. Could you try with this
one?
Index: name-lookup.c
===
--- name-lookup.c (revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 31248
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31248&action=edit
Comment 7 patch as a file
I still get both warnings, applied the patch to:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20131119 (experimenta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
>
> That would be fine. But it seems less important for member functions, since
> there's much less chance of a local variable name conflicting with some
> r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #5 from Jason Mer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil ---
It may not be exactly correct but from a practical standpoint clang has caught
my bug while not annoying me with tons of needless changes like gcc did, FYI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> clang does no warn on "var_and_method" as variable vs. method are safe, if one
> tries to use them inappropriately one gets an error.
Not always. Think of function pointers or pointer to member functions.
16 matches
Mail list logo
