At 12:18 PM +0000 1/16/05, Robert Watson wrote: >One of the reasons why I find __unused irritating is the >following sort of situation: > >int >dummyfunction(int arg1, int arg2, char *argv) >{ > >#ifdef DUMMY_USES_ARGV > if (argv != NULL) > printf("dummyfunction: %s\n", argv); >#endif > return (arg1 + arg2); >} > >With the new world order, we would have to ifdef the function >definition to conditionally use __unused in order to allow the >function to compile with or without the #ifdef. In this specific case, would it make sense to change the code to be: int dummyfunction(int arg1, int arg2, char *argv) { if (DUMMY_USES_ARGV && (argv != NULL)) printf("dummyfunction: %s\n", argv); return (arg1 + arg2); } ? This does mean you must always define DUMMY_USES_ARGV to be 0 or 1 (which is easy enough to do by using an #ifndef check up at the start of the file). But it does remove the warning message (at least in gcc), and in my testing it also seems to produce the same-size object-code as the #ifdef version. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad_at_freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih_at_rpi.eduReceived on Sun Jan 16 2005 - 22:16:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:26 UTC