Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
 > 
 >   > 3.  35-55 unused parameter `???'
 >   > 
 >   > 	These are fixable by either using ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED (easy), or
 >   > by actually removing the parameter from the function definition and
 >   > all calling sites (harder).  We need to decide which way it'll be
 >   > handled.  In the cases where the parameter is used under #ifdef
 >   > conditionals, you've already stated we should use ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED.
 > 
 > Well, when there's an interface that isn't easily changed, then
 > ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED is the way to go.  For example, a function called by
 > note_stores.
 > 
 > I've got no problem changing interfaces where doing so isn't a major pain
 > in the butt.  In fact, I'd prefer to kill the unused parameters :-)


	Okay, I'll start on these especially the ones where using
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED is appropriate since they are one-liners, and I'll do
the harder ones after that.



 >   > 4.  30-40 comparison between signed and unsigned
 >   > 
 >   > 	Most of these are fixable using casts.  However some might be
 >   > due to bugs.  In particular, the definition of Pmode in sparc.h
 >   > produces these warnings when compared against its own supposed type.
 >   > I.e. here is a testcase, you may want to put it in the testsuite:
 > 
 > Let's put these on hold for #1, #2 & #3.


	Okay.  Please remember to insert my testcase.



 >   > 7a.  9 variable `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
 >   > 7b.  5 argument `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
 >   > 
 >   > 	(A bit more of these also occur in the cp/ and java/ dirs.)
 >   > 
 >   > I don't know how we could fix these.  Perhaps one could make the
 >   > parameter or variable volatile, but it doesn't really fix the problem
 >   > and it seems to just provoke the warning on another variable. (?)
 > 
 > You've fixed most of these, right?


	Short answer: yes, I've fixed most.

	Long answer: I've fixed those that appear on my systems.  Its
possible due to some convoluted ifdef conditionals that they still
happen on other platforms.  E.g. anywhere setjmp is called outside of
do_float_handler might elicit the warning.  I didn't want to do a
complete purge of setjmp calls since if the code is ifdef'ed out on my
system, I won't know if I typo'ed something.

I've also not yet done the ones from the java directory.  Per already
has 5 patches from me in his queue, I don't want to overload him. :-)

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions