From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102149 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2017 12:52:03 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 102130 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2017 12:52:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:773, dept X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:52:01 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id B7D891E561; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:51:59 -0400 (EDT) To: Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vec: Silence -Wunused-function warnings on clang X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:52:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <31ac014f-ea44-020f-d999-5bee4dd8293f@redhat.com> References: <1498412703-24303-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <1498412703-24303-3-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <31ac014f-ea44-020f-d999-5bee4dd8293f@redhat.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00701.txt.bz2 On 2017-06-26 14:47, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 06/26/2017 01:28 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > >> I wanted to keep it simple and easy to understand, so I didn't want to >> add to many layers of definitions. I thought that even if we ignored >> -Wunused-function in the vector macro expansions when compiling with >> GCC, it wasn't a big deal. > > That's another option (and I think it should be fine, with a comment), > but it wasn't what the patch was doing, so you'd be leaving deciding > whether that's fine to whoever comes next and wants to make > DIAGNOSTICS_IGNORE_UNUSED_FUNCTION on gcc. IMO, that's a form of > technical dept that we should avoid. You are right, and it was due to technical laziness :P.