On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Yes, thanks, mark_rvalue_use is definitely wrong here. But mark_lvalue_use
> might be wrong as well; we don't know here how the expression is used by the
> inner conversions for the user-defined conversion. Can we remove the call
> entirely? It doesn't seem to break any Wunused* tests.
It was added in r159096 for -Wunused-but-set*. It is surely possible it is
now covered by other mark_*_use calls. Or could we call there just
mark_exp_read instead?
Jakub
