Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:28:35 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: + shut-up-warnings-in-ipc-shmc.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:00:12AM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > > It seems that ({0;}) is used when something is expected to return zero. > However, if it is used in a void context, gcc 4 generates an annoying > warning.
Annoying indeed.
> > mm.h: > > #define shm_lock(a, b) empty_int() > > > > The typechecking is nice in theory, but in practice I don't think it > > really makes a difference for stubbing things out.
I'm with Matt on the typechecking here, and at first liked his proposal; but then dreaded a long line of empty_int_0(), empty_long_minus1(), ... I suppose we could pass the return value as argument, but I rather lose interest...
> Depends if you end up with "blah is unused" warnings instead. It's > all round _far_ safer to use the inline function method from that > point of view. > > Not that I particularly care, I just wanted to squash some of the > rediculous number of warnings in the kernel and decided to hit the > easy ones. However, they're turning out to be real pigs instead. 8(
I have nothing constructive suggest, and withdraw my objection to your patch; though I do hope someone else comes up with a brilliant idea. Or, does the next version of gcc decide it was all a wrong turning?
Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |