From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 491F63840C0A; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:06:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 491F63840C0A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1592831172; bh=MMITVRg9Kv7SmfFgusfdhteJqN+pUf6eJFSFDoiO6Fs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YNqIxB7cNaXYV8VlHyWvADH+2nGGUZTFNDuU07kdatdxyryCBanf7O+0tg1g2aJFS tGWJm34UbhSx7eGgm3UWXoSK8/QgY6lBmTrf4O5pyeKa1quipNCMMr0NiXJ7vszRy1 gqKPLVUGaZR3OUwTjgmJcjendGZ2tmB8YbqESf+I= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/95807] GCC accepts "void value not ignored as it ought to be" in function template Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:06:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status everconfirmed bug_severity cf_reconfirmed_on Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:06:12 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95807 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal |enhancement Last reconfirmed| |2020-06-22 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #4) > As other major compilers reject this by default, I just suggest GCC should > emit a appropriate diagnostic message (maybe a warning is fine). What practical impact does this have on any real world code? Why should we spend time on that, rather than the million other things we h= ave to fix? Obviously in an ideal world GCC would be perfect, but the majority of your = bug reports are asking for time to be spent on things that just don't matter. If you really want it fixed, you can always do it yourself: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html=