From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4092 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2009 11:58:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 4065 invoked by uid 48); 11 Dec 2009 11:57:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20091211115758.4064.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/36587] Feature: add warning for constructor call with discarded return. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "kkylheku at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg01127.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from kkylheku at gmail dot com 2009-12-11 11:57 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > But I'm not convinced that doing this is always a mistake. > > > > Since we don't care about the object, we must care about the constructor side > > effect. I seem to be under the impression that ISO C++ allows the construction > > of temporary objects to be optimized away---even if there are side effects in > > the constructor or destructor! Therefore, it's hard to see a valid use case for > > this. > Certain temporaries (such as those created during copying or reference binding) > can be optimised away, I don't think it's true of temporaries created > explicitly like this. I've gone over the relevant 14882:2003 sections and have come to the same conclusion. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587