hamzasood 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}}
----------------
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.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36572
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
