Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes: > All, > > I've seen discussions come up several times lately about whether you should > use MAYBE_UNUSED or UNUSED in what scenario and why do we have two of them > anyway. That got me thinking a bit. Maybe what we actually want instead > of MAYBE_UNUSED is something like this: > > #ifdef NDEBUG > #define ASSERTED UNUSED > #else > #define ASSERTED > #endif > > That way, if you only need a parameter for asserts, you can declare it > ASSERTED and it won't warn in release builds will still throw a warning if > you do a debug build which doesn't use it. Of course, there are other > times when something is validly MAYBE_UNUSED such as auto-generated code or > the genX code we use on Intel. However, this provides additional meaning > and means the compiler warnings are still useful even after you've > relegated a value to assert-only. > > Thoughts? I'm also open to a better name; that's the best I could do in 5 > minutes.
We should delete one or the other of the current ones and not have different names to need to know for the same underlying function attribute. I'd prefer deleting MAYBE_UNUSED (UNUSED is less typing and the name of the underlying attribute), but would go either way.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
