dblaikie added a comment. In D77611#1968236 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77611#1968236>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> In D77611#1968227 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77611#1968227>, @dblaikie wrote: > > > Looks like GCC warns on everything but the last unused expression (the last > > one being the return statement) - only warning on that last one if it's > > ultimately unused by the statement expression function call, as it were (& > > is annotated warn_unused_result). Basically, it models it like a function > > in a way that Clang perhaps does not? > > > For the case of warn_unused_result, it doesn't matter whether the unused call > is the first or last statement in the statement expression: > https://godbolt.org/z/DDgsVC (notice that trunk of LLVM warns now, just not > for the return value case from my added test). Not sure I follow - if you swap the statements in the example there, the warning seems to go away. Compare (yours) https://godbolt.org/z/DDgsVC (warning with Clang and GCC) with https://godbolt.org/z/j65QXo (Clang and GCC do not warn). > So GCC treats the return value from statement expressions differently from > return values from functions in this regard: https://godbolt.org/z/83wP7W I don't think it does (based on above clarification/test cases). But your change would make Clang treat them differently from each other (& different from GCC), I think? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77611/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77611 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
