From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: lots of unused variable warnings in assert-free builds |
Date: | 2012-01-24 17:57:36 |
Message-ID: | 9063.1327427856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ouch. Is it really true that __attribute__((unused)) disables detection
>> of use of uninitialized variables?
> Oh, I think maybe I am confused. The downsides of disabling *unused*
> variable detection are obviously much less than the downsides of
> disabling *uninitialized* variable declaration... although neither is
> ideal.
OK. MHO is that __attribute__((unused)) is probably less annoying than
#ifdef overall. Also, it occurs to me that an intermediate macro
"PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY" would be a good idea, first because it
documents *why* you want to mark the variable as possibly unused,
and second because changing the macro definition would provide an easy way
to check for totally-unused variables, in case we wanted to periodically
make such checks.
This is all modulo the question of what pgindent will do with it,
which I would still like to see tested before we commit to a method.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-24 18:03:50 | Re: lots of unused variable warnings in assert-free builds |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-24 17:55:56 | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |