On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 20:29 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 09/15/2015 11:20 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > I guess it is not the 'const' I think should be handled special but the > > 'static'. Having unused static variables (const or not) declared in a > > header file but unused seems reasonable since the header file may be > > included in multiple .c files each of which uses a subset of the static > > variables. > > I tend to agree. I suppose diagnosing unused non-const static > definitions might be helpful but I can't think of a good reason > to diagnose unused initialized static consts in C. Especially > since they're not diagnosed in C++. > > Would diagnosing them in source files while avoiding the warning > for static const definitions in headers be an acceptable compromise? > > Martin That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Steve Ellcey sell...@imgtec.com
