From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Jeff King <email@example.com>
Cc: Derrick Stolee <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] annotating unused function parameters
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:00:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Sat, Aug 20 2022, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:58:08PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Yes, I spoke too soon, sorry. We still need ((unused)). FWIW the below
>> on top of master and doing:
> Right. Using ((deprecated)) is really just a substitute for the variable
> renaming part.
> And I agree it works as advertised, though I think I prefer the
> variable-renaming version.
> One, it feels like we're abusing the deprecated attribute here. The
Definitely, but structurally it seems like a better pick. I.e. isn't the
only problem with it the "deprecated" and its interaction with
If the exact same feature existed as a "insert-custom-warning", which
would work exactly "deprecated" without the default warning "prefix"
would you think this would fit perfectly?
> -Wno-deprecated-declarations to get around _actual_ deprecated warnings
> (e.g., compiling with OPENSSL_SHA1=Yes). And doing so would be cutting
> out half the protection of UNUSED() in that case.
This is mildly annoying, but I don't really think it's a practical
issue. We're talking about running this without
-Wno-deprecated-declarations in CI, and by default.
For unused parameters it's enough that we're catching them somewhere, or
in common compilation settings, we don't need to catch them
*everywhere*, do we?
IOW is anyone writing patches where they're testing with
-Wno-deprecated-declarations *and* adding unused parameters *and* won't
test without -Wno-deprecated-declarations before submitting them, *and*
nobody else will catch it?
> Likewise, one thing I like about the renaming is that it fails
> compilation regardless of -Werror. So it will be caught in any compile,
> no matter what. And I do automatically compile without DEVELOPER=1 when
> on a detached HEAD, because historical commits often trigger warnings.
> Go back far enough and OPENSSL_SHA1 was the default, which generates
> lots of warnings these days. :)
*nod*, I think this also goes the other way. It's nice to be able to use
DEVOPTS=no-error to "get past" various minor issues. I consider an
unused parameter as being a minor issue. E.g. when ad-hoc cherry-picking
something to test on an older version it can be annoying to have to make
larger changes when a DEVOPTS=no-error would do.
> And finally, I actually prefer the parentheses of:
> static int register_ref(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
> int UNUSED(flags), void *UNUSED(cb_data))
...and now to the real reason for the follow-up. You/Junio were CC'd,
but this is breaking coccinelle, see:
So, bikeshedding-wise I don't care to argue the point. But between odd
syntax highlighting and now one analysis tool barfing on it it's a bit
more than a bikeshed :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-25 11:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-19 10:07 [PATCH 0/11] annotating unused function parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 01/11] git-compat-util: add UNUSED macro Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 02/11] refs: mark unused each_ref_fn parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 03/11] refs: mark unused reflog callback parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 04/11] refs: mark unused virtual method parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 05/11] transport: mark bundle transport_options as unused Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 06/11] streaming: mark unused virtual method parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 07/11] config: mark unused callback parameters Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 08/11] hashmap: " Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 09/11] mark unused read_tree_recursive() " Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 10/11] run-command: mark unused async " Jeff King
2022-08-19 10:08 ` [PATCH 11/11] is_path_owned_by_current_uid(): mark "report" parameter as unused Jeff King
2022-08-19 13:58 ` [PATCH 0/11] annotating unused function parameters Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-08-19 18:59 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-19 20:58 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-08-20 9:46 ` Jeff King
2022-08-20 21:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-08-22 14:14 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-25 11:00 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-08-26 7:10 ` Jeff King
2022-08-26 13:08 ` Phillip Wood
2022-08-26 16:37 ` Junio C Hamano
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).