> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/17/16 20:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> (adding Ard and Shumin because the below will tie in with another thread) >> >> On 03/17/16 19:05, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> >>> I must confess to no small amount of surprise that optionally adding >>> the ability to tag an unused argument as unused is controversial. > >> If I understand correctly, if we wanted to enable "-Wunused-parameter >> -Wunused-but-set-parameter" even just occasionally, these ~4000 >> instances would have to be audited, and each should be either fixed >> (i.e., internal functions should drop the parameters) or marked UNUSED >> (i.e., library instances and PPI/protocol implementations should >> annotate their definitions of public functions). >> >> Thus, this is what surprises me. It looks daunting. > > Small clarification: if you'd like to selectively add > "-Wunused-parameter -Wunused-but-set-parameter" to the [BuildOptions] of > a number of (non-core?) modules (in their INF files), and employ UNUSED > in connection with that, I certainly think that's a valid use case. > > To me it does justify this patch. Namely, perhaps marking parameters as > UNUSED will not be enforced across the entire tree, but if a module > owner would like to enable those warnings on his/her turf, then he/she > should be able to annotate the unused parameters with a macro that is > centrally defined. The macro definition should be universal, even though > its application might not be. >
That sounds reasonable to me. I think in general you will find that Mike Kinney and I are for turning on every compiler warning that is practical to use. Thanks, Andrew Fish > Thanks > Laszlo > > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
