On 01/15/2012 01:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> I see that in some places our code already uses #ifdef
>> USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, presumably to hide similar issues. But in most
>> cases using this would significantly butcher the code. I found that
>> adding __attribute__((unused)) is cleaner. Attached is a patch that
>> cleans up all the warnings I encountered.
> Surely this will fail entirely on most non-gcc compilers? Not to
> mention that next month's gcc may complain "hey, you used this 'unused'
> variable". I think #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is really the only way
> if you care about quieting these warnings. (Personally, I don't.)
>
>
It would possibly have some documentary value too. Just looking very
quickly at Peter's patch, I don't really understand his assertion that
this would significantly butcher the code. The worst effect would be
that in a few cases we'd have to break up multiple declarations where
one of the variables was in this class. That doesn't seem like a tragedy.
I like software that compiles in the normal use with few or no warnings.
I should have thought that would appeal to most packagers, too.
cheers
andrew
