This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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: best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros

From: Mathieu Lacage <mathieu dot lacage at gmail dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:39:57 +0100
Subject: Re: best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros
References: <CAOV_JPaqhPJjHg1VAWcatuq0FRmiRpHiZ2BHJJ6qi44=pCDU4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdQ=-_MysuD8DyKJrECebn8W4EPps3M+n0bYZbyYwMzsdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOV_JPaeT6ox6wjQTX1SmF7tN8EsYCYdapbmkhNF3-LuUXAxmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRaYwUyQzn5dwVgToHVGCWpEyQz7XeNZHHje6Ee8R6Y9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 20:03, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's valid C, so any compiler will accept it and not evaluate the
> expression. ÂIf you mean "will it suppress an unused variable warning"
> I don't know.

Yes, that was the question. Googling a bit did turn up useful
resources that appear to confirm this:

http://cnicholson.net/2009/02/stupid-c-tricks-adventures-in-assert/

problem solved. Thanks a lot for the suggestion that did put me on the
right track.

Mathieu
-- 
Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@gmail.com>

References:
- best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros
  - From: Mathieu Lacage
- Re: best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros
  - From: Mathieu Lacage
- Re: best practice to handle unused variables depending on macros
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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