Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:36:55 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: gratuitous gcc warnings: unused function arguments? Message-ID: <20050117053655.GA96378@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <p06200723be10ba368225@[128.113.24.47]> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050116210328.50371F-100000@fledge.watson.org> <p06200723be10ba368225@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 07:51:35PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 9:05 PM +0000 1/16/05, Robert Watson wrote: > >On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > > > We're not going to hack GCC to deal with this. That is going way > > > too far. This is coming up because people are using high WARNS > > > values in Makefiles. Either back them down to a lower WARNS value; > > > or we should add -Wno-unused-parameter to WARNS level 3. > > > >I'd be fine with simply pushing threshold for unused parameters up > >a few notches on the warning scale. I'd like to have access to the > >other interesting warnings are WARNS=3 and WARNS=4 relating to > >qualifiers, strings, etc. > > I think it would be useful to keep that warning "in general", but > have an option to turn it off. The following seems to work for me, > assuming we can decide on the best name for a new NO_WUNUSED_ARGS > option: Do you have a piece of code that exhibits this warning but otherwise could pass at higher warning level? I'm reisitance to adding a lot of NO_FOO_WARNING knobs. Otherwise we might as well as remove the whole WARNS thing and set each warning a Makefile wants. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050117053655.GA96378>