git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] annotating unused function parameters
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 03:10:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ywhx6LLe6YcS/2xf@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <220825.86edx44lzh.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 01:00:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> > 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
> -Wno-deprecated.
> 
> 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?

Yeah, I agree that would remove my complaint about overloading the
meaning. I don't think that exists, though.

> 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?

No, but the farther away you go from the edit-compile-run cycle, the
more painful warnings become. Catching them immediately and fully has
real value, as it means the cost of correcting them is lower. So all
things being equal, I think we should prefer universal solutions when
they're available (and for example compiler errors over say, coccinelle
or other analysis tools).

(And yes, I know all things sadly aren't equal; see below...)

> 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?

Probably not. I don't actually build with -Wno-deprecated-declarations
routinely. But my fear is that some platform may be stuck there for a
while (because an overzealous libc marks something). But that's kind of
hypothetical, so we may have to just accept it and cross that bridge if
we come to it.

> > 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:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/220825.86ilmg4mil.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/

Ugh. Yeah, that is really unfortunate. I much prefer the parenthesized
syntax, but if we can't find a way to unconfuse third-party parsing,
then switching is probably the least-bad solution.

-Peff

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-26  7:10 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
2022-08-26  7:10           ` Jeff King [this message]
2022-08-26 13:08             ` Phillip Wood
2022-08-26 16:37             ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Ywhx6LLe6YcS/2xf@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=derrickstolee@github.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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).