public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/100956] New: Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used
@ 2021-06-08 1:23 mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
2021-06-08 12:35 ` [Bug c++/100956] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09 0:14 ` mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: mattreecebentley at gmail dot com @ 2021-06-08 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100956
Bug ID: 100956
Summary: Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks
where variables are conditionally used
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For example, as part of a container class:
void remove_memory_blocks(pointer back_element_in_final_block)
{
if constexpr(!std::is_trivially_destructible<element_type>::value)
{
// destroy each element in each memory block until the back_element is
reached
}
// remove memory blocks
}
If element_type is_trivially_destructible, G++ will warn that
back_element_in_final_block is unused every time the function is called.
Ideally this warning should be performed before constexpr blocks are removed by
a parser (I have no idea what the procedure is for GCC, I'm just guessing here)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/100956] Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used
2021-06-08 1:23 [Bug c++/100956] New: Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
@ 2021-06-08 12:35 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09 0:14 ` mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-08 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100956
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The warning is already fixed in the GCC 10 branch.
N.B. if you have a loop that does nothing but run trivial destructors, GCC will
optimize it out anyway.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81676 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/100956] Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used
2021-06-08 1:23 [Bug c++/100956] New: Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
2021-06-08 12:35 ` [Bug c++/100956] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-09 0:14 ` mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: mattreecebentley at gmail dot com @ 2021-06-09 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100956
--- Comment #2 from Matt Bentley <mattreecebentley at gmail dot com> ---
Thank you - I'm aware GCC might optimize it out (and failed to test with
GCC10), at least in O2 mode, but other compilers might not, hence the code.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-09 0:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-06-08 1:23 [Bug c++/100956] New: Unused variable warnings ignore "if constexpr" blocks where variables are conditionally used mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
2021-06-08 12:35 ` [Bug c++/100956] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09 0:14 ` mattreecebentley at gmail dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).