https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> struct indirect_cmp {
> static int counter;
> bool operator()(const X* l, const X* r) {
> ++counter;
> return *l < *r;
> }
> };
>
> int indirect_cmp::counter = 0;
>
> So the pure attribute isn't the right property.
I tried your code on cppcheck and much to my surprise it found
the problem:
$ /home/dcb/cppcheck/trunk//cppcheck --enable=all --inconclusive may9a.cc
may9a.cc:4:8: style:inconclusive: Technically the member function
'indirect_cmp::operator()' can be const. [functionConst]
bool operator()(const X* l, const X* r) {
^
$
My working assumption had been that cppcheck was looking for C++
member functions that consist of a return statement only but clearly
it is doing more than that.
If there is any interest, I could probably figure out the pattern of C++
code it is looking for.
My opinion is that a first approximation at implementation in gcc would
merely look for C++ member functions that are return statements only.
More fancy things could be done later in a second version.
