On 7 August 2018 at 14:50, Jason Merrill wrote:
> OK.
Trunk only, no backports, presumably. I asked about backports in the
second-to-last submission, but I am gravitating
away from backporting this, it's a non-regression that's dealing with
a fairly recent change, so I'm going to operate
with a t
OK.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> On 7 August 2018 at 13:12, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> Maybe put this block first rather than add !is_capture_proxy to the if
>> condition?
>
> Thus?
On 7 August 2018 at 13:12, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Maybe put this block first rather than add !is_capture_proxy to the if
> condition?
Thus?
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
index 3aafb0f..0faf739 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -2640,13 +264
On 08/07/2018 07:12 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 8 July 2018 at 02:08, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 8 July 2018 at 01:54, Paolo Carlini wrote:
That would make this more consistent with such a shadow warning, but I
don't want
to use the shadowing wording (which would be easy to do; just set
On 8 July 2018 at 02:08, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 8 July 2018 at 01:54, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> That would make this more consistent with such a shadow warning, but I
>>> don't want
>>> to use the shadowing wording (which would be easy to do; just set
>>> 'shadowed' and do
>>> a 'goto infor
On 8 July 2018 at 01:54, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> That would make this more consistent with such a shadow warning, but I
>> don't want
>> to use the shadowing wording (which would be easy to do; just set
>> 'shadowed' and do
>> a 'goto inform'), because this isn't shadowing in the precise sense;
>>
Hi,
On 08/07/2018 00:09, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 8 July 2018 at 00:35, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 07/07/2018 23:20, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (old),
+ "capture %qD and lambda parameter %qD "
+ "have the sa
On 8 July 2018 at 00:35, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/07/2018 23:20, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> + error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (old),
>> + "capture %qD and lambda parameter %qD "
>> + "have the same name",
>> + dec
Hi,
On 07/07/2018 23:20, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (old),
+ "capture %qD and lambda parameter %qD "
+ "have the same name",
+ decl, old);
Let's consider, say (with -Wshadow):
int main() {
in
Needed one more tweak; when dealing with a capture proxy, always bail
out and never fall through to the warning-handling
code below the DR 2211 check.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
index 3aafb0f..fee5482 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -264
On 7 July 2018 at 21:55, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 7 July 2018 at 21:12, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Should we really print the same name twice? Looks like we don't have
>> available (yet) a location for cap - that would likely enable fancy things -
>> but in that case too I don't think the user
On 7 July 2018 at 21:12, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Should we really print the same name twice? Looks like we don't have
> available (yet) a location for cap - that would likely enable fancy things -
> but in that case too I don't think the user would find that interesting
> seeing the same name twice
On 7 July 2018 at 16:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Did you consider handling this in check_local_shadow?
Roughly like this, not fully tested yet:
2018-07-07 Ville Voutilainen
gcc/cp/
PR c++/79133
* name-lookup.c (check_local_shadow): Reject captures and parameters
with the same
Hi,
On 07/07/2018 01:50, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (parms),
+ "capture %qE and lambda parameter %qE "
+ "have the same name",
+ cap, parms);
Should we really print the same name twice? Looks lik
Did you consider handling this in check_local_shadow?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> Tested on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk, perhaps with the change
> that I move the test under cpp1y, since it's a c++14 test anyway?
>
> I considered pushing the captures into the paramete
Tested on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk, perhaps with the change
that I move the test under cpp1y, since it's a c++14 test anyway?
I considered pushing the captures into the parameter scope. I don't
know how to do that; changing the pushdecl_outermost_localscope
to a pushdecl doesn't seem to cut it; I
16 matches
Mail list logo
