http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-05-30 17:22:45 UTC --- I think there is a largely linguistic misunderstanding: when I said unintended I meant that I did not *anticipate* that after my patch, which was fixing a real bug, we would end up warning more, in templates too. For sure the testcase I mentioned in my last message pre existed and likewise the code I posted here. In my opinion the warning, by itself, definitely makes sense in general, but it looks like, we may not want it uncinditionally, we may want to control it, otherwise can be annoying in the template contexts mentioned here. Do you agree with my summary? In practice: shall we give the warning a name and a switch?
