aaron.ballman added a comment. In D152495#4628877 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495#4628877>, @hans wrote:
> In D152495#4628785 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495#4628785>, @cor3ntin > wrote: > >> It is used, but only in an assert. Seems like the right fix! > > I suppose it is technically, but I'm not sure the fix reads like an > improvement to me... I guess that's often the case with unused variables vs. > asserts though. > > In D152495#4628870 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495#4628870>, @goncharov > wrote: > >> due to this change we have a enourmous number of new warnings, on the other >> hand -Wunused-variable is a valuable warning. I am not sure what is the >> policy and best practices for warnings but maybe there is a possiblity to >> make a transition period for enabling this type of warning separetely and to >> allow updating existing code? > > The usual policy is to put new warnings behind new flags so users can disable > them selectively. It gets trickier when it's existing warnings getting > enhanced like this. Would it be possible to put this new functionality behind > a flag? That might not be a bad idea in this case -- perhaps `-Wunused-condition-variable` and group it under `-Wunused-variable`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152495 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
