philnik added a comment. In D143524#4148024 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524#4148024>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> In D143524#4148006 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524#4148006>, @philnik wrote: > >> The emitted warnings from the libc++ CI look like a false-positive to me. >> While the functions are never called, they are used in an unevaluated >> context. I would expect `-Wunused` warnings to only be emitted when I can >> just remove the code without problems, which doesn't seem to be the case >> here. It would probably just get turned off again by lots of people if there >> are too many false-positives, which I don't think is the goal here. > > From what I see is that most of the templates are marked with static which > means internal linkage. Entities with internal linkage in header files are > essentially different across translation units which is an ODR violation. I > believe the discussion here gives more insights of how this works: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D29877 > > Indeed the warning is noisy but it will potentially fix broken code which > were unable to diagnose before. Especially that in some cases where static > templates in header files are used as an idiom. In theory this approach can > extend to cases described in https://wg21.link/p2691 where our inability to > diagnose/fix these cases leads to some design decisions which may not be > optimal. I missed the `static` at the beginning. That explains the warning, thanks! I agree this should be fixed. I'll look into making a patch to enable `-Wunused-template` and fix any problems. Hopefully there aren't too many. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
