Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:14:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Style fixups for proc.h Message-ID: <200302020014.h120ESxb018045@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200302012345.h11NjqaX028714@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:WARNS=5.
This isn't helpful. I tried adding every -W switch in bsd.sys.mk
and couldn't reproduce the problem. What compiler option is causing
the problem?
:> :2 ways to fix this are to "protect" the prototype argument names with the
:> :"_", or to remove the argument name altogether.
:>
:> If it is a problem, why not simply use the same variable names that are
:> declared in the procedure proper? The underscore looks ugly and out of
:> place and doesn't make that much sense to me.
:
:Because this doesn't always help, or if it did, the diffs are often
:much bigger and to many more files.
:
:M
:--
:Mark Murray
:iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
Ok, now I'm really confused. How can it not always help? If the
arguments are the same as the arguments declared in the underlying
procedures why would an error still be produced? The diff you produced
for proc.h is *already* fairly extensive. If you want to fix this,
you only need to fix the lines generating compiler warnings.
I really dislike screwing around with source code to work around
bugs in the the compiler, or lint. Given the choice of underlines
or leaving the arguments unnamed, I would leave them unnamed. Or I
would figure out and remove whatever broken compiler option is generating
the warning in the first place.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302020014.h120ESxb018045>