On Dec 6, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:33 AM, John McCall wrote:
>> It could be dependent if we implemented overloading on it. :)
>>
>> I'm not sure why __attribute__((cleanup("foo"))) is different from, say, an
>> explicit call to (foo)(x), or &foo. In all of these cases, from the user's
>> perspective the function is used, because their code probably won't compile
>> if you remove the declaration. So you should still use
>> MarkDeclarationReferenced, and if we want to teach MarkDeclarationReferenced
>> about this user notion of a dependent use, we've got one place to change.
>
> I disagree with "from the user's perspective the function is used". The
> function declaration is needed, sure, but that's very different from "used"
> in the ODR sense, which implies that we need to have a definition. And I
> think that user's don't expect to need definitions for something that's only
> used in an uninstantiated template.
Right, so we clearly wouldn't want this "user" sense of "used" to cause
instantiation, much less code emission. But it would be nice for
-Wunused-function not to suggest removing function definitions when doing so
will cause the code to stop compiling.
John.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
