This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [PATCH] Some compiler warnings removed


Mark Kettenis wrote:
> 
>    Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:07:57 -0500 (EST)
>    From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>
> 
>    > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>    >
>    > > --- gdb/blockframe.c~0  Wed Dec 22 21:45:02 1999
>    > > +++ gdb/blockframe.c    Wed Feb 23 16:51:44 2000
>    > > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ nonnull_frame_chain_valid (chain, thisfr
>    > >       CORE_ADDR chain;
>    > >       struct frame_info *thisframe;
>    > >  {
>    > > +  thisframe = thisframe;
>    > >    return ((chain) != 0);
>    > >  }
>    > >
>    >
>    > FWIW,
>    >
>    > The way GCC handles this is by appending ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED to the
>    > parameter declaratons. I see no reason for doing it differently.
> 
>    I'm not sure I follow.  I know about __attribute__((unused)), but I
>    thought I couldn't use GCC-specific extensions, except in places which
>    will never be compiled by anything but GCC (like go32-nat.c).  If
>    there is a portable way of doing this that I missed, please tell me
>    where to look.
> 
> Take a look at include/ansidecl.h.  People who are not using GCC will
> have to learn to live with the warnings :-).

Just an asside.  I personally wish that a few of the GCC -W* flags were
tweeked so that they better differentiated between various warnings. 
Unused locals vs unused parameters is one example.  The random warnings
from -W is another.

Adding ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED is just a compromise.

	Andrew

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]