aeubanks added a comment. In D79895#2107796 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895#2107796>, @nick wrote:
> > This warning can be turned off by the flag > > `-Wno-uninitialized-const-reference`. > > Suggesting to turn off the warning should be the last resort. I am pointing > to the false positives for large existing code bases from `-Wall` diagnostic. > > > I don't think we can just make the diagnostic not fire for empty body > > consuming functions, if the function declaration and definition are in > > different translation units. > > I am talking about the particular situation that is involves only inline > functions with empty bodies. `boost::ignore_unused`-like functions are > obviously come with definition. I feel like doing interprocedural analysis for this is overkill. What is the benefit of `boost::ignore_unused(foo);` rather than the more common `(void) foo;`? Any examples? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
