On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO, the right approach would be to suppress this warning when the constant > value itself was instantiated from something... although that's rather > trickier to implement. I don't disagree with your premise.... but it does seem much trickier to implement. We don't have the nice type sugar in non-types to indicate that substitution took place. Is it worth adding that for this? Are there other good reasons to add it? (Also, this patch seems a strict improvement, and we can add the refined checking you're mentioning as a second step? I'd like to avoid the false positives we were seeing with the previous incarnation)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
