efriedma added a comment. I'm not sure this direction really makes sense.
There's a long history of defining utility functions in headers as "static inline". Non-static inline functions in C have confusing semantics. In C++, the semantics are less confusing, but "static inline" still isn't rare. The warning is designed to be compatible with that reality: it allows people to define "static inline" functions, and still get warnings about other functions that might be unused unintentionally. I don't think the warning is realistically usable if it doesn't allow "static inline" functions in headers. The fact that the "inline" keyword isn't really significant on a "static inline" function doesn't necessarily mean the warning shouldn't exist in its current form. Have you tried to see what the practical impact of this change is on real-world codebases? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92886/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92886 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
