This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Add check_result attribute

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:24:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add check_result attribute
References: <20030912182707.GH12344@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz><87pti5snmv.fsf@codesourcery.com><wvloexp7k10.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>

Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:

>> These are awfully verbose.  Suggest just "return value of \"%D\" not used"
>> in both cases
>
> The purpose of the "declared..." bit is to tell the user that this warning
> was requested in the declaration of the function, it's not just the
> compiler trying to enforce some arbitrary coding style.

I understood that, but I think it's unnecessary.

>> -- and please make both of them include the name of the function whose
>> result is being ignored.
>
> The first one does, the second can't.

Why can't it?

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Add check_result attribute
  - From: Jason Merrill

References:
- [PATCH] Add check_result attribute
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Add check_result attribute
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: [PATCH] Add check_result attribute
  - From: Jason Merrill

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