EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29877#766176, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29877#765968, @EricWF wrote: > > > I think this patch still gets the following case wrong: > > > > // foo.h > > constexpr struct { > > template <class T> void operator()(T) {} // emits unused template > > warning > > } foo; > > > > > What specifically do you think is wrong here? There is an unused internal > linkage function template here. If we want to warn on unused internal linkage > templates declared in headers, we should warn on this one. I was confused about the linkage initially. My mistake. Should adding `inline` here change that? > Note that any use of `foo` here from an inline function would result in ODR > violations (because you get a different `foo` in each translation unit), so > it's probably at least a bad idea to do that. We could suppress this warning > for unused internal linkage templates declared in headers, or maybe move that > to a separate warning flag; can you point us at some code that does this in > practice and isn't wrong? No. But I can point you to `range-v3` which uses this pattern and I think the idiom is somewhat appealing, but that's orthogonal to Clang diagnosing it. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29877 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
