On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:26:44PM -0500, Sidney San Martín via cfe-commits wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> > > wrote: > > > > I'm not a big fan of this. Those calls are by the very definition > > harmless, so they aggrevate the existing problem of stupid annotation. > > The issue is that the annotation's current diagnostic is pretty > nonspecific and therefore not useful to programmers who don't know what > it means in that specific case. Adding parameters to specify a > specific, useful diagnostic (and maybe deprecating the argument-less > use), or forking this into two more specific annotations, should resolve > things.
I'm fine with introducing a new attribute or even just deducing automatically that calls to const functions without using the result are likely pointless under a new warning. I just want to avoid overloading the existing warning. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
