hans added a comment. In D79895#2109414 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895#2109414>, @nick wrote:
> > I feel like doing interprocedural analysis for this is overkill. What is > > the benefit of boost::ignore_unused(foo); rather than the more common > > (void) foo;? Any examples? > > > > > I haven't seen boost::ignore_unused before. In my experience, the idiomatic > > way of ignoring an unused variable in C/C++ is to cast it to void, as > > Arthur said. > > This is a weak argument to have false positives, don't you agree? You may > have not seen it, but it exists and is used: > https://github.com/search?q=%22boost%3A%3Aignore_unused%22+NOT+%22Boost+Software+License%22&type=Code There are plenty of warnings which have false positives on non-idiomatic code though. The question is how common this pattern of using a function to ignore an unused variable is. We didn't see it in the code bases I work with, so is boost a special case, or an example of a common practice? If it's just boost, fixing the code seems better (it will compile faster too). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
