v.g.vassilev added a comment. In D143524#4150286 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524#4150286>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D143524#4148024 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524#4148024>, @v.g.vassilev > wrote: > >> Indeed the warning is noisy but it will potentially fix broken code which >> were unable to diagnose before. Especially that in some cases where static >> templates in header files are used as an idiom. In theory this approach can >> extend to cases described in https://wg21.link/p2691 where our inability to >> diagnose/fix these cases leads to some design decisions which may not be >> optimal. > > We need to ensure the diagnostic is not so noisy that people disable it, > though. That means a low false positive rate and a straight-forward way to > silence the diagnostic on a case-by-case basis. I agree, so far I have not seen false positives. All issues (except for `-Wctad-maybe-unsupported` as mentioned above) seemed real. Do you have a particular example in mind? ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-func-not-needed.cpp:13 namespace test1_template { -template <typename T> static void f() {} +template <typename T> static void f() {} // expected-warning {{unused function template}} template <> void f<int>() {} // expected-warning {{function 'f<int>' is not needed and will not be emitted}} ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > v.g.vassilev wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Why is this unused? `f<long>()` in `foo()` should cause this to be used, > > > right? > > > > > > How should a user silence this diagnostic without disabling it entirely? > > Nobody uses `foo`. > Ah, good point on `foo` not being used, but the question still stands -- how > does the user silence this diagnostic? It's not at all uncommon to have a > primary template with specializations where the TU only uses either the > primary or a specialization, but not both (and certainly not all > specializations). @philnik used `[[maybe_unused]]` which seemed reasonable to me for silencing the diagnostic. Maybe take a look at the changes done here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144667 Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
