From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 491303858D20; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 12:06:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 491303858D20
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given
 three times
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 12:06:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104379-4-GXgNBGbP1s@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104379-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104379-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 12:06:18 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104379

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose the same issue might happen with templates where we'd warn
> once per instantiation?

Yes indeed. Once for the primary template, and then again for each
specialization generated from it:


template<typename T>
struct S
{
  int i;
  int f(int i) { return i; }
};

int i =3D S<int>().f(1);
int j =3D S<long>().f(1);



shad2.C: In member function =E2=80=98int S<T>::f(int)=E2=80=99:
shad2.C:5:13: warning: declaration of =E2=80=98i=E2=80=99 shadows a member =
of =E2=80=98S<T>=E2=80=99 [-Wshadow]
    5 |   int f(int i) { return i; }
      |         ~~~~^
shad2.C:4:7: note: shadowed declaration is here
    4 |   int i;
      |       ^
shad2.C: In instantiation of =E2=80=98int S<T>::f(int) [with T =3D int]=E2=
=80=99:
shad2.C:8:19:   required from here
shad2.C:5:13: warning: declaration of =E2=80=98i=E2=80=99 shadows a member =
of =E2=80=98S<int>=E2=80=99
[-Wshadow]
    5 |   int f(int i) { return i; }
      |         ~~~~^
shad2.C:4:7: note: shadowed declaration is here
    4 |   int i;
      |       ^
shad2.C: In instantiation of =E2=80=98int S<T>::f(int) [with T =3D long int=
]=E2=80=99:
shad2.C:9:20:   required from here
shad2.C:5:13: warning: declaration of =E2=80=98i=E2=80=99 shadows a member =
of =E2=80=98S<long int>=E2=80=99
[-Wshadow]
    5 |   int f(int i) { return i; }
      |         ~~~~^
shad2.C:4:7: note: shadowed declaration is here
    4 |   int i;
      |       ^=