If you see any other patches which could use a better approach just ping me. I will try to fix in the plane.
Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: You can't always win. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: > You get a statement with no effect warning. > > Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: > > > Does that work or generate an warning about statement with no effect? > > Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill > <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: >> There is precedence for using the compiler attributes >> so I just added that and switched. >> > I think it might be better to avoid compiler attributes when there is > a language-level alternative that is compiler-agnostic. In this case, > the use of: > (void) var; > seems fine to me. > >> Thanks for the feedback. >> >> If we have a print format string to use for mode_t and >> wchar_t, a few more cases would be fixed. >> >> On 9/22/2013 7:32 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote: >>> Hello Ralf and others, >>> >>> On Sunday 22 of September 2013 05:01:49 Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/cpukit/posix/src/semopen.c b/cpukit/posix/src/semopen.c >>>>> index b863080..e61fad0 100644 >>>>> --- a/cpukit/posix/src/semopen.c >>>>> +++ b/cpukit/posix/src/semopen.c >>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,14 @@ >>>>> * parameters must be present. >>>>> */ >>>>> >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * mode is set but never used. GCC gives a warning for this >>>>> + * and we need to tell GCC not to complain. But we have to >>>>> + * have it because we have to work through the variable >>>>> + * arguments to get to attr. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push >>>>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-but-set-variable" >>>>> sem_t *sem_open( >>>>> const char *name, >>>>> int oflag, >>>>> @@ -137,3 +145,4 @@ return_id: >>>>> return (sem_t *)&the_semaphore->Object.id; >>>>> #endif >>>>> } >>>>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop >>>> >>>> Why this brutal and probably non-portable way to suppress warnings? >>>> >>>> Why doesn't __attribute__((unused)) or similar suffice? >>> >>> I would prefer to see something like RTEMS_ATTR_UNUSED to support >>> multiple compilers. You can look at my collection of these in >>> uLUt definitions file >>> >>> http://sourceforge.net/p/ulan/ulut/ci/master/tree/ulut/ul_utdefs.h >>> >>> I declare file contents (by this e-mail) as free for public >>> domain use (uLUt as whole is is GPL/LGPL/MPL RTEMS compatible too). >>> >>> As for the actual __attribute__((unused)) there is even portable >>> solution which does not depend on GCC extension. >>> >>> { >>> int my_unused_var; >>> (void) my_unused_var; >>> } >>> >>> This solution should be accepted by all compilers and is suggested >>> by some people as better option. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Pavel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtems-devel mailing list >>> rtems-devel@rtems.org >>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development >> joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research >> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 >> Support Available (256) 722-9985 >> _______________________________________________ >> rtems-devel mailing list >> rtems-devel@rtems.org >> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel > > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > rtems-devel@rtems.org > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
