https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80985
--- Comment #2 from John Lindgren <john at jlindgren dot net> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> template<class Func>
> int call (Func f)
> {
> static int counter;
> f ();
> return ++counter;
> }
Yes, this is a different example in which the warning does matter.
> Maybe if the function is known to be pure and is there's no explicitly
> instantiation declaration or definition the warning would be redundant.
Something along those lines, yes. As I said, I'm only asking that the warning
be refined so it produces less false positives.
Or could you consider not including this warning in -Wall? I want to use -Wall
to display only warnings that (1) likely indicate buggy code and (2) can be
silenced by fixing the code. The code in my example is quite correct and there
is no obvious way to "fix" it except to avoid using major features of the C++
language.
