xbolva00 added a comment. In D100581#2706467 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581#2706467>, @dblaikie wrote:
> FWIW, I'd love it if we could do a full dead-store warning, which would be a > superset of this. I think we have enough infrastructure in the analysis based > warnings (I think the sufficiency of the infrastructure is demonstrated by > the "may be used uninitialized" warnings). Such a warning would subsume these > narrower "set but not used" type of warnings (though would require the > analysis warning infrastructure). - Compile time cost could be a problem. - Do we need stronger dead store warning? Clang analyzer checks for dead stores, no? I would rather have this on by default with -Wall, than something stronger off by default Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
