"Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > This should be diagnosed by -Wunused, IMHO. You are calling a > constructor, but ignoring the return value. ... > into the program, -Wunused will give you a diagnostic. But if you > construct an object and ignore the result, you don't get a diagnostic. Of course constructors (and destructors) can have side-effects, and it's not that uncommon to create objects just for such side-effects. I'm not sure how common it is to use _unnamed_ objects in this way (I've never done it I think, and it seems ever so slightly dodgy), but obviously it's possible... I guess gcc could warn when there are obviously no side-effects but who knows how easy that is (and maybe the few cases it catches aren't worth the effort). -Miles -- "Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit?" [George Carlin]
