dblaikie added subscribers: respindola, doug.gregor. dblaikie added a comment.
Along time ago Clang had a fairly strong aversion to implementing "off by default" warnings (though clearly weak-vtables was an exception to that - it's a pretty esoteric warning even at the best of times/without this special case) because they would tend to go unused and unmaintained. I'm sort of inclined towards this subset of the warning (either the poorly implemented one originally, or this version) being that sort of category, and that it'd be better to delete it. Honestly in retrospect I think it was a bug in the warning that should've been fixed by not warning in this case, rather than splitting it out into its own warning group. The warning was originally written to ignore implicit template instantiations - and should've ignored explicit instantiations too, I think. @doug.gregor - any interest in revisiting this (there's some discussion on the linked bug, which links back to a discussion we had many many years ago... )? @aaronpuchert - do you have plans to use this warning, if it's implemented/changed in this way? @respindola - do you have any interest in using this warning if it were implemented/changed in this way? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
