Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:20:48 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (void)foo or __unused foo ? Message-ID: <9654.1343388048@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:38:24 %2B0200." <20120727093824.GB56662@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20120727093824.GB56662@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>, Luigi Rizzo writes:
>The alternative way to avoid an 'unused' warning from the compiler
>is an empty statement
>
> (void)foo;
The thing I don't like about this form, is that it doesn't communicate
your intention, only your action.
Somewhere down my TODO list I have an item to propose instead:
typedef void unused_t;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
(unused_t)argc;
(unused_t)argv;
return (0);
}
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9654.1343388048>