On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.pars...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 January 2017 at 13:16, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wasn't thinking about that kind of odr-unuse when reviewing your >> patch, so I am starting to think that perhaps it's not worth >> distinguishing unevaluated contexts or not in the diagnostic. :-( If >> we could do it, then great (we seem to be able to do it for regular >> variable use: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/4bde9b5daf48956a), >> but if not, then I think we should just go back to the original >> wording that says it's not required to be captured (in all cases, not >> distinguishing odr-use) and put in a FIXME with the test cases that >> could have an improved diagnostic (including the test case talked >> about here, which we should add). What do you think? > > The warning can distinguish: > * not looked up > * looked up > * looked up and used > > It doesn't know why a variable was looked up but not used.
Drat, though I don't think this diagnostic warrants making changes to that. > > You suggested the wording "not required to be captured for this use" > earlier in this thread; is that better? Yes, I think that wording makes sense. ~Aaron > > -- > Malcolm Parsons _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits