DJ Delorie wrote:
Seems rather marginal to worry about this. Surely this is letting
best be the enemy of good.
I agree. I was only noting the objections last time I suggested
something like this.
And as for it being a bug, that's just a matter of clear
documentation.
The problem was that you *can't* have clear documentation, because it
often depends on how the optimizer mucks with the code.
I guess I don't see this, whether the warning is issued might depend on
this,
but I don't see that the suppression mechanism would be accpted.
If was can accept docs that say "it mostly works like this, but
sometimes it does other interesting things instead, and it might
change from release to release", then the task becomes significantly
easier.
