[PATCH] PR28901 -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables
Sat Sep 19 02:57:00 GMT 2015
On 09/15/2015 11:20 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 19:10 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:02:15AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>> I am not sure I like this change. It broke the GLIBC build for me on
>>> MIPS. Basically GLIBC has a header file with initialized static
>>> constant globals (sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/atnat2.h contains tqpi1 and
>>> qpi1) and that header file is included in multiple .c files like
>> Multiple? All I can see is e_atan2.c including that header file, nothing
> Whoops, bad assumption on my part. I thought it must be included
> somewhere else, otherwise why put it in a header.
>>> sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_atan2.c that use some, but not all, of those
>>> static constant variables. But between the various .c files all of the
>>> globals are used somewhere, just not in every individual .c file. This
>>> seems like a perfectly reasonable use of static globals and header files
>>> that should not be identified as a warning.
>> I disagree. While const vars are special in C++, it is really like
>> any other variable in C, so the warning is IMHO appropriate.
> I guess it is not the 'const' I think should be handled special but the
> 'static'. Having unused static variables (const or not) declared in a
> header file but unused seems reasonable since the header file may be
> included in multiple .c files each of which uses a subset of the static
I tend to agree. I suppose diagnosing unused non-const static
definitions might be helpful but I can't think of a good reason
to diagnose unused initialized static consts in C. Especially
since they're not diagnosed in C++.
Would diagnosing them in source files while avoiding the warning
for static const definitions in headers be an acceptable compromise?
More information about the Gcc-patches