Richard Henderson wrote:-
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I don't think you should get a warning for not using the return value of a
> > function, at least not under -Wunused.
>
> For this, I agree. Except that we're not talking about the
> return value of
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:42:19PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>>Well, as I mentioned in the PR, macro writers can wrap the whole thing
>>in a statement expression and avoid the warning. Can't we suggest this
>>and keep (almost) everybody happy?
>
> I think so.
FWI
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:42:19PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Well, as I mentioned in the PR, macro writers can wrap the whole thing
> in a statement expression and avoid the warning. Can't we suggest this
> and keep (almost) everybody happy?
I think so.
r~
> A stronger case for changing this would be that gcc version
> n-1 didn't warn. As discussed elsewhere, some modicum of
> stability in warnings is desirable from the user's perspective.
> I don't know whether or not this applies in this case.
Well, as I mentioned in the PR, macro writers can wra
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't think you should get a warning for not using the return value of a
> function, at least not under -Wunused.
For this, I agree. Except that we're not talking about the
return value of the function directly, we're talking a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:00:42PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> As in the example, these cases will usually arise in macros, where under
> some circumstances some computation will be wasted.
Which is no different from f()+1, for which no one is arguing
that the warning we give is incorrect. If you've
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:01:56PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > We traditionally do not warn about not using the value returned by a
> > function. And I don't see why adding a cast should change that.
> > Intuitively, a cast by itself is not a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:54:48PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:01:56PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > We traditionally do not warn about not using the value returned by a
> > function. And I don't see why adding a cast should change that.
> > Intuitively, a cas
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:01:56PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> We traditionally do not warn about not using the value returned by a
> function. And I don't see why adding a cast should change that.
> Intuitively, a cast by itself is not a computation.
In many cases is certainly is -- it's a
Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this reduces to:
>
> int f(void);
> void g(void)
> { (unsigned) f(); }
>
> Which was made to deliberately warn by Joseph's patch here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00275.html
>
> I closed the bug as a WONT
Hi folks.
In this PR we are emitting a "value computed is not used" warning for the
following code (via some fancy macro expansion in the Linux kernel):
unsigned long t(void);
void apic_write_atomic(unsigned long reg, unsigned int v)
{
((__typeof__(*((volatile un
11 matches
Mail list logo
