https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69723
--- Comment #3 from Peter VARGA <developm...@faf-ltd.com> --- Dear Jakob, thank you for the explanation. But honestly, the "definition" when to warn is in my eyes wrong. Even var++ is reading and then setting the variable in this case it does NOT make sense! Just imagine I had a function with 200 lines and I "forgot" this variable in a refactoring process. gcc could have warn me because it is not logical and the variable is set but NOT used. May be the gcc community can reconsider the definition.
