https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #19 from hyc at symas dot com --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #18) > (In reply to Kern Sibbald from comment #17) > > The g++ developers could have realized that in especially in "undefined" > > territory where they knew they would break code the conservative way to do > > it without creating chaos is to add new strict warning message for a period > > of time (one to two years) prior to making their changes default. > > If someone developed the warning, it could stay forever. The problem is that > someone needs to develop the warning. People working on GCC right now > (including myself) are either not paid to do this or not personally > interested in such a warning enough to dedicate their free time. That's all well and good. But, somebody had to go out of their way to develop the code to identify this case of new as being a dead store. Why was this worth anyone's time to do so? What performance benefit does this "optimization" bring, and is it really worth all of the obviously known breakage that it causes? We all have important things to be doing. It doesn't appear that the time invested in this "feature" was time well spent.
