llvm dev - Jul 2013 - [LLVMdev] [BUG] Support for -W[no-]unused-but-set-{variable, parameter}

Hi,

These warnings are included by default with -Wall in GCC 4.6 [1], and
LLVM should support them instead of throwing -Wunknown-warning-option.

[1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html

Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> These warnings are included by default with -Wall in GCC 4.6 [1], and
> LLVM should support them instead of throwing -Wunknown-warning-option.
>
> [1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html
Please file bug reports at llvm.org/bugs/

-Eli

FWIW I'd sort of prefer just to have a generalized dead store warning
(special casing for parameters doesn't seem all that important -
though I could be wrong).

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> These warnings are included by default with -Wall in GCC 4.6 [1], and
> LLVM should support them instead of throwing -Wunknown-warning-option.
>
> [1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Eli Friedman wrote:
> Please file bug reports at llvm.org/bugs/
Filed bugs for all three.  I was hoping to fix these now, with some help.

David Blaikie wrote:
> FWIW I'd sort of prefer just to have a generalized dead store warning
> (special casing for parameters doesn't seem all that important -
> though I could be wrong).
Does LLVM have some existing code to detect a dead store that I can
just hook into to fix the bug?  I agree that the {variable,parameter}
might not be important in practice, but we need to be compatible with
GCC.