From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28561 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2013 21:16:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 28549 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2013 21:16:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:15:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r11LFaFA029044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:15:48 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r11JPhWc018000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:25:44 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] cleanup: Wunused corefile.c References: <510AC74E.1010709@qnx.com> <87vcad5cf1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <510AD43E.3040405@qnx.com> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <510AD43E.3040405@qnx.com> (Aleksandar Ristovski's message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:29:50 -0500") Message-ID: <87boc34z0o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Aleksandar" == Aleksandar Ristovski writes: Aleksandar> This is why I put a FIXME - intending to revisit and properly fix. FIXME comments are just ignored in practice. IME, nobody ever fixes them except as a side effect of what they were intending to do. Aleksandar> But there are other cases where it is not about missing code, but Aleksandar> e.g. conditional compilation. For example: Yeah, in that case I am less sure. Making the definition conditional might be ok. Or it might be uglier than the occasional ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED. I guess it depends on the case. Aleksandar> However, I do not intend to push this very hard due to lack Aleksandar> of time. I simply did a swipe over the code and made it Aleksandar> compile with Wunused (without regressions) on Aleksandar> x86_64-linux-gnu and wanted to contribute as much as I can Aleksandar> without spending too much time on it. I understand, but I think the hard part of this work is also the most useful part. What I mean is that it is certainly valuable to get all the simple cases fixed; but going through the trickier cases and writing proper fixes is the real benefit of enabling this warning -- finding and fixing real bugs. Making these warnings disappear is contrary to that. Tom