aaronpuchert added a comment.
In D101566#2726820 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566#2726820>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Along time ago Clang had a fairly strong aversion to implementing "off by
> default" warnings ([...]) because they would tend to go unused and
> unmaintained.
That was a valid reason, but now there are code bases that work with
`-Weverything` and disable the warnings they are not interested in.
> I'm sort of inclined towards this subset of the warning (either the poorly
> implemented one originally, or this version) being that sort of category, and
> that it'd be better to delete it.
We have other warnings that are basically just about "cleaner" object files,
like `-Wmissing-prototypes` or `-Wmissing-variable-declarations`. (These
enforce adding `static` on functions/variables not previously declared. Though
together with `-Wunused-{function,variable}` one could find more unused
functions/variables, which could be seen as improving code quality.)
> The warning was originally written to ignore implicit template instantiations
> - and should've ignored explicit instantiations too, I think.
Looking at the warning name I think you're right. There is no way to make the
vtables strong. But I don't think anybody cares about this technicality, the
warning is there to reduce compile time and object file sizes.
In fact it's probably not so much about emitting the vtable, but about emitting
all virtual functions, even if they end up unused. In the template case this
also implies instantiation.
> @aaronpuchert - do you have plans to use this warning, if it's
> implemented/changed in this way?
Let's say that I'm considering it. I'll need to see how often this fires and
whether the explicit instantiations make sense to me.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
