On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:36:08PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >We do not enable warnings about unused function parameters, so > >there is little point in trying to silence those warnings. > >Besides, some fringe compilers choke on these attributes. > >--- > > > >This is a more complete version of Rémi's patch. > > > >libavcodec/dxva2_h264.c | 3 +-- > >libavcodec/dxva2_mpeg2.c | 4 ++-- > >libavcodec/dxva2_vc1.c | 3 +-- > >libavcodec/vaapi_h264.c | 6 +++--- > >libavcodec/vaapi_mpeg2.c | 4 +++- > >libavcodec/vaapi_mpeg4.c | 4 +++- > >libavcodec/vaapi_vc1.c | 3 ++- > >libavcodec/vda_h264.c | 4 ++-- > >libavcodec/vdpau.c | 3 +-- > >libavcodec/vdpau_internal.h | 4 ++-- > >libavcodec/vdpau_mpeg4.c | 6 +++--- > >11 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > Umm, no. Sure, we don't have these annotations everywhere, and we > don't warn about it by default, but removing isn't necessary either.
Why do you want to keep them in just a few select places? We probably have dozens or hundreds of functions with unused parameters... > The only place anything chokes on them is if it is in a function > declaration, not in implementations. > > So a patch removing it from all declarations would be ok, but please > keep it in the definitions. That's what Rémi's patch does. I will push that to fix FATE while we discuss this. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
