This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Criteria for a warning to be in -Wall? (was: Re: a warning toimplement)
- From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <duret_g at lrde dot epita dot fr>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 10:27:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: Criteria for a warning to be in -Wall? (was: Re: a warning toimplement)
- Cancel-lock: sha1:wwnYC81rW7MKQmxFJxjjr2v0Llo=
- Distribution: world
- Organization: EPITA / LRDE http://www.lrde.epita.fr
- References: <20020207001204.27B8DF28BE@nile.gnat.com><20020207003128.GY12083@rjlhome.caldera.com>
>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> <<I'd have a strong preference for something that doesn't rely on GCC
>> extension. __attribute((unused)) is just as icky in a portable project
>> as magic /* ARGSUNUSED */ comments recognized by others.
>> Sure, that's understandable, but using
>> int a = a;
>> on the grounds that, even though there is no guarantee, it just happens
>> to work, is to me the antithesis of writing clean portable code!
Robert> I hear you and it annoys me, too.
Robert> So show us another alternative to shut up the warning
Robert> with zero runtime cost that is still portable code.
(void) a; ?