arphaman abandoned this revision.
arphaman added a comment.
Abandoning. The current behaviour makes sense. Thanks for the responses!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34810
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
arphaman added a comment.
Ah, I see, so this is more of a stylistic warning rather than "suspicious" use
one.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34810#795926, @rtrieu wrote:
> What is the reason to exclude void expressions now? For the function case,
> it is more consistent to warn on all
rtrieu added a comment.
Reid is correct, the whitelisted expressions was greatly reduced during code
review so only casts to void would disable the warning. While the last review
did not have the description updated to reflect this, the committed code does
have an accurate description. What
gparker42 added a comment.
I thought void-returning functions were supposed to be allowed based on the
description in https://reviews.llvm.org/D3976 , but later in that discussion
the definition was changed to instead allow almost nothing.
Repository:
rL LLVM
rnk added a comment.
I thought the intention of -Wcomma was to warn on practically all non-macro
uses of the comma operator. I know it's silly to cast void to void, but I seem
to recall that this was an intentional style-ish warning like -Wparentheses,
which encourages `if ((x = y))` for
