On 2023-08-01 10:07:28+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 07:30:14AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > This warnings will be enabled later so avoid triggering it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > index 53a3773c7790..cb17cccd0bc7 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > @@ -1089,7 +1089,8 @@ static int smash_stack(void)
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > -static int run_protection(int min, int max)
> > +static int run_protection(int __attribute__((unused)) min,
> > + int __attribute__((unused)) max)
>
> This one is used to silence -Wunused-parameter I guess.
Yep.
> It's one of
> the rare warnings that I find totally useless in field, because it's
> simply against the principle of using function pointers with different
> functions having the same interface but different implementations. As
> your code evolves you end up with unused on absolutely *all* of the
> arguments of *all* such functions, which makes them a real pain to add
> and tends to encourage poor practices such as excessive code reuse just
> by laziness or boredom. BTW it's one of those that are already disabled
> in the kernel and we could very well do the same here.
It's indeed unfortunate.
As long as we don't have too many of them I would prefer to keep the
explicit annotations. While they are ugly we then can still reap the
positive aspects of the warning.
This is where -std=c89 bites us. With extensions (or C2X) we could also
just leave off the argument name to mark it as unused:
run_protection(int, int)
