On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 01/15/2012 01:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> writes: >>> >>> I see that in some places our code already uses #ifdef >>> USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, presumably to hide similar issues. But in most >>> cases using this would significantly butcher the code. I found that >>> adding __attribute__((unused)) is cleaner. Attached is a patch that >>> cleans up all the warnings I encountered. >> >> Surely this will fail entirely on most non-gcc compilers? Not to >> mention that next month's gcc may complain "hey, you used this 'unused' >> variable". I think #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is really the only way >> if you care about quieting these warnings. (Personally, I don't.) >> >> > > > > It would possibly have some documentary value too. Just looking very quickly > at Peter's patch, I don't really understand his assertion that this would > significantly butcher the code. The worst effect would be that in a few > cases we'd have to break up multiple declarations where one of the variables > was in this class. That doesn't seem like a tragedy. > > I like software that compiles in the normal use with few or no warnings. I > should have thought that would appeal to most packagers, too.
Sounds good, but let's not do it yet because we have a few patches to commit first. It would be good to minimise bit rot during the CF. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
