On 8/20/2022 5:46 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:58:08PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> Yes, I spoke too soon, sorry. We still need ((unused)). FWIW the below >> on top of master and doing: > > Right. Using ((deprecated)) is really just a substitute for the variable > renaming part. > > And I agree it works as advertised, though I think I prefer the > variable-renaming version. > > One, it feels like we're abusing the deprecated attribute here. The > confusion in the compiler output I'm OK with, because we get a chance to > put our own message there (so I agree the output is actually better than > with my patch). But from time to time I've had to build with > -Wno-deprecated-declarations to get around _actual_ deprecated warnings > (e.g., compiling with OPENSSL_SHA1=Yes). And doing so would be cutting > out half the protection of UNUSED() in that case. The fact that we can't turn on -Wno-deprecated-declarations is enough to convince me that we need to use the variable renaming trick. Thanks, -Stolee
