Date: 17 Jul 2001 21:36:31 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@q9media.com>, audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inetd(8) warns patch Message-ID: <xzpvgkr1h6o.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <200107160951.aa79104@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> References: <200107160951.aa79104@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> writes: > Looks fine to me, as long as __unused is considered acceptable in > our code. (I know you can get rid of the __unused for compilers > that don't understand it by using a #define, but if another compiler > denotes unused variables/parameters by "unused int blah;" then > you can't generate this statement.) __unused is already a macro. I believe the corresponding GCCism is __attribute__((__unused__)). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpvgkr1h6o.fsf>