rupprecht accepted this revision.
rupprecht added a comment.
I still see one behavior change (actually it was there before, but I missed it
in the test results), but as far as I can tell, it's a good one? If I reduce it
too much, I get the warning with the baseline toolchain, so it's not erroneous
AFAICT. Although I won't pretend I know all the intricacies of `static` and
`inline`.
// a.h
static const std::pair<double, double>& GetFakePair() {
static constexpr std::pair<double, double> kFakePair = {123.0, 456.0};
return kFakePair;
}
// b.h
#include "a.h"
class X {
void Foo(..., const std::pair<double, double>& x = GetFakePair()) const;
};
// main.cc, compiled with -Wunused-function
#include "b.h"
int main() { return 0; }
Yields this error:
In file included from main.cc:9:
In file included from ./b.h:16:
./a.h:40:41: error: 'static' function 'GetFakePair' declared in header file
should be declared 'static inline' [-Werror,-Wunneeded-internal-declaration]
static const std::pair<double, double>& GetFakePair() {
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that, in regards to this warning, this
change is just enabling an existing warning to have more coverage, and
therefore this change looks ready to ship. Thanks for letting me provide all my
repros before landing this one again :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136554/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136554
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
