aaron.ballman added a comment. In D143524#4148024 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143524#4148024>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> 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. We need to ensure the diagnostic is not so noisy that people disable it, though. That means a low false positive rate and a straight-forward way to silence the diagnostic on a case-by-case basis. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-func-not-needed.cpp:13 namespace test1_template { -template <typename T> static void f() {} +template <typename T> static void f() {} // expected-warning {{unused function template}} template <> void f<int>() {} // expected-warning {{function 'f<int>' is not needed and will not be emitted}} ---------------- v.g.vassilev wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > Why is this unused? `f<long>()` in `foo()` should cause this to be used, > > right? > > > > How should a user silence this diagnostic without disabling it entirely? > Nobody uses `foo`. Ah, good point on `foo` not being used, but the question still stands -- how does the user silence this diagnostic? It's not at all uncommon to have a primary template with specializations where the TU only uses either the primary or a specialization, but not both (and certainly not all specializations). 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
